¶ 3Leave a comment on paragraph 30
The Working Group for the Revision of the MLA Divisions and Discussion Groups has completed a new draft of the proposal in response to nearly 1,000 member comments on MLA Commons. This new draft has emerged from an unprecedented attempt at collaborative thinking about complex questions, both theoretical and practical. We are grateful for your comments and for the time and thought you put into them. We learned from them all, as we did from the letters that members of many executive committees sent us last spring. We have been working hard, as have many of you, on negotiating among differing visions for the future of the MLA.

¶ 5Leave a comment on paragraph 50
Please note that the revised divisions and discussion groups are called “forums” in the new draft. The term “groups” will be used for the less formal social and intellectual entities that members create on MLA Commons.

¶ 6Leave a comment on paragraph 60
In the new draft, forums are arranged under nine general categories: Languages, Literatures, and Cultures; Comparative Literary and Cultural Studies; Genre Studies; Media Studies; Rhetoric, Composition, and Writing Studies; Language Studies and Linguistics; Theory and Method; Transdisciplinary Connections; and Higher Education and the Profession. These larger rubrics are organizational rather than prescriptive, and individual forums can request a shift in placement on this map or a name change. Cognizant of the asymmetrical histories and overlapping logics of our many subfields, new and old, we have aimed to construct a map that responds as much as possible to the understanding of current field formations communicated to us by colleagues in these fields.

¶ 8Leave a comment on paragraph 80
We look forward to seeing many of you at the discussions in Chicago. Meanwhile, we invite you to post your comments on the new draft before 1 February and to continue this rich conversation about the past, present, and future of our many different areas of teaching and scholarship.

Comments

Comments are closed

A big thanks to the Working Group for taking on this difficult and largely thankless task. I am especially glad to see the expansion of the forum system to include emergent fields and a greater range of the world’s literatures. Since we can’t expand to accommodate new realities and also keep every session to which we have grown accustomed, I hope we can find further ways to slim down the number of sessions devoted to well-established fields, many of which have their own specialized conferences where the most robust discussions of the literatures in question occur. Being an early modernist I am acutely aware that one kind of diversity we want to keep alive is historical. I hope we won’t become a presentist organization only, though increased attention to the urgent matters of the profession is one of the changes I most welcome. In regard to the comment registered by Margaret Ferguson concerning 17th century literature, the numbers she cites suggest that this is one place where I little belt-tightening might be in order. I myself favor combining 16th and 17th English literature under the rubric early modern or Renaissance in line with the title now used for comparative sessions in this field. For the Shakespeare forum, a more inclusive title might be Shakespeare and Early Modern Drama or Early Modern Theater Culture. Sessions under the Shakespeare rubric often already do reach beyond this one writer, and our forum title might register that more directly.

My thanks to the Working Group for the revised proposal. For the most part, I am very happy with the suggestions and think that the new structure will go a long way in addressing the changing needs of our profession and help foster new energies and debates. The one thing that I didn’t quite follow is the difference being made between “Languages, Literature, and Cultures” and “Comparative Literary and Cultural Studies.” I realize that these are rubrics of convenience and ultimately meant to be fluid, but nonetheless, it seems that some of the forums under the first rubric (such as the entire list under Latin American) could easily be moved to the Comparative section and some from the second rubric (such as the two forums on African Literatures) could just as easily be moved under “Languages. Literatures and Cultures.” I was trying to figure out whether the committee thought that work in some fields was more “comparative” than others — but I doubt that that was the intent. Maybe it was just a way to find some quantitative symmetry under the various general categories (and not have one general category that overwhelmed all the others by sheer bulk), but then again they aren’t necessarily all equally populated anyway. Just curious.

The revisions to the East Asian “fora” look great to me and reflect the comments I have read and heard from my colleagues in Chinese, Japanese, Korean and East Asian Comparative Studies. I think the largest of these fora is going to be the Modern and Contemporary Chinese one. I hope it will receive more than one session per annual conference.

Some have called this effort on the part of the Working Group “thankless.” I hope not. So, for the record, THANK YOU for getting us this far and I hope my colleagues will join me at the MLA this year in helping steer it to the next stage.

Christopher Lupke, Washington State University, Delegate for West Coast/Pacific Region

On behalf of the a very vocal community of Restoration and 18th British century specialists, thanks to the committee for preserving those two divisions, rather than collapsing them as had been previously considered. And thank you for your hard work!

May I echo the appreciative comments of others in saying thank you to The Working Group for addressing concerns posted on the previous draft. The whole MLA Forum Structure revision process is demonstrating important ways in which, in conjunction with the Annual Convention, MLA Commons can serve MLA members now and in the future! I look forward to following the next steps in the development of this proposal.

I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups. We are happy to learn that the MLA took into consideration the remarks posted online about the first phase of the MLA reorganization. In total, there were five remarks (one was posted twice, so the overall number is five not six). Two remarks welcomed setting up a classical/post classical Arabic group, whereas three remarks did not agree with this direction. Moreover, two comments, out of those three, wished there were more emphasis on comparative and multilingual Arab literature. The online feedback has helped us reconsider our initial plans, and at the 2014 meeting of the Executive Committee and our division discussed how we could better serve our members.

As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”

Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.

Our diasporic panels have been among the most successful sessions in terms of proposal submission and attendance. Notwithstanding this success, our division cannot keep up with the vast volume of works that appear in English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese, among other languages, by authors with roots in the Arab-speaking world. Therefore, establishing a new, separate “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” forum is necessary.

Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.

By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).

We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.

Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.

Note that this large category is organized both by languages, often working transnationally, and by national and regional formations. This rubric reflects current field formations; we have made no attempt to impose parallelism among among different subfields.

[The entire letter is posted under 29 “Arabic. I have excerpted here the parts that pertain to setting up the “Arab American” forum and the rationale for proposing this new forum. – Suha]
Dear Marianne and Margaret,
I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups.
As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”
Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.
Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.
By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).
We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.
Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.
Regards,
Suha Kudsieh (Chair , Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, 2014-5)
On behalf of the members of the Executive Committee
MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture:
Stephen Sheehi (Secretary), Chris Micklethwait (Ex-Chair), Wail Hassan, and Hoda El Shakry.
Shaden Tageldin and Samer Ali, MLA delegate representatives.

In addition to the many and relevant reasons already given above by other colleagues to justify a separate category and forum for Galician Studies at MLA, I’d like to mention the international presence of Galician communities worldwide, in particular in the Americas. Very few, if any, stateless nations in the world have such an important diaspora. According to official data provided by the Galician Government (Xunta de Galicia) to the UW-Milwaukee Galician Studies Research Group, the presence of organized Galician communities worldwide is as follows:
Galician Communities outside of Galicia by country
(Source: Xunta de Galicia; Elaborated by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Galician Studies Research Group)

The 20thc American Literature Division members discussed this at some length at our last meeting. We came to a pretty clear consensus that we did not want to split up the 20th century since there are compelling intellectual reasons for treating the century as a whole. At the same time, several of us are moving into the 21st century. We opted for 20th and 21st century American literature, even as we acknowledged that the centuries would probably have to be split out at some point–just not yet.

The 20th-Century American Literature Division recommends extending the coverage of the current division to include the 21st century, as Paula Moya recommends above. In a decade or so, this 20th- and 21st-Century American Literature Forum can be split into two.

The current executive committee of the division had a long discussion about the proposed change at the Chicago conference. The committee feels that the general shift from “divisions” and “discussion groups” to “forums” could be useful. However, it strongly opposes the proposed change to the title (and presumably the content) of our division. Such a change would be both radical and unwelcome.

It was the consensus of the Executive Committee that the current division titles not only more accurately represent the work done in the field of American, generally, but that they do so in a way more conducive to future scholarship.

Regarding the accuracy of the name, it is telling that the four sessions sponsored or co-sponsored by our division at the MLA in Chicago all fell in the “late 19th/early 20th century” rubric; while one panel dipped back to Melville and another forward to black writing in the 1940s, they all turned on the axis of the twentieth century, being neither fully one nor the other. The current rubric is of interest precisely for the way it is set on the cusp between centuries. It reflects not merely a period of political and technological ferment, but also, and essentially in our view, a neatly defined literary period. It is the era of realism and naturalism, linked to but distinguished from the American renaissance, and also from that of modernism taking shape in the 1920s. Moreover, the current division productively describes the period after the Civil War and the Indian Wars when issues of race, class, gender and ethnicity were of particular cultural significance, as can be seen in the period’s attention to dialect and regionalism. It is a moment of emergence of mass media forms, with illustrated magazines, dime novels, and motion pictures coming to the fore. It is the period known for the “incorporation of America,” as Alan Trachtenberg usefully termed it many years ago. I could go on, but the point is that the specificity of our field is lost with the new suggestion. Indeed, those of us on the executive committee were entirely uncertain whether the proposal intended us to disperse into the current 19th or the new 20th century division. We would become a field without a divisional home.

We feel, furthermore, that the proposal by the MLA would lock the divisions into a paradigm that would prove more constraining and antiquated than what we currently have. The proposal would seem to resituate our division firmly in the 20th century, presumably in order to allow for the expansion of the 20th century into two groups (20c American to 1945 and American since 1945), and in effect taking away one division from the 19th century in order to do so. The logic for this move seems arbitrary from both historical and literary perspectives. It would seem to privilege a state paradigm that became dominant in the period of the 1920s, the “American century,” but loses the opportunity for a productive reimagining of the American field tracing national transformation over a longer history. The only comment in the MLA Commons on the change, from Paula Moya, suggests that the Division on 20th Century American Literature agrees. The proposal, in sum, feels tone-deaf to the aesthetic rubrics that should, in our opinion, define the historical divisions (and in this regard, we particularly regret the elimination of “literature” from the division titles). It also feels historically constricting.

Our final concern is more practical. The divisions of the MLA remain extremely important in organizing the academy. They shape the way dissertations are written, scholarly books are published, undergraduate and graduate curriculums are organized, and faculty lines are negotiated with university administration. The proposed change emphasizes the twentieth century in a way that is harmful to the institutional significance of the MLA’s dedication both to the historical tradition and the future disciplinary shape of the study of American literature. And, moreover, it would seem to eliminate a field of study in which departments hire regularly—a move that seems strategically short sighted in an era of diminishing institutional resources.

The 20th-century division members discussed potential changes last year, and agreed that renaming the current division 20th-and 21st century American literature best reflected our sense of how the field was currently constituted. Several of us felt very strongly that dividing the period pre- and post-1945 would arbitrarily restrict our ability to pursue conversations and critical initiatives in a field that increasingly operates as a “long” 20th-century. Also, while acknowledging the eventual need for a more contemporary or 21st-century division of some kind, we concluded that post-1945 American literature would be a shortsighted solution since in a few years it too would be a formulation that would need to be rethought in order to address emergent 21st-century fields. For the time being, we felt that the longer, more encompassing period best allowed for the operational and intellectual flexibility that currently distinguishes a great deal of the work we see being done in 20th-century US literary studies. Establishing 1945 as a dividing line between two periods would enshrine US modernism as a separate enterprise at a time when few departments in the profession are actively conceiving of, or hiring in, this period apart from a more broadly formed notion of “20th-century” US literature. Some of us also wondered whether the “contemporary” would in fact be better served if it was not attached to a particular national literature, since so many scholars are approaching recent literatures in English (American, British, and Anglophone) in global or transnational contexts.

Speaking personally as someone whose work very much looks back to the late 19th-century, and who has participated in several late 19th-century division panels, I also strongly support the arguments laid out by Brad Evans above.

The 20thc American Literature Division members discussed this at some length at our last meeting. We came to a pretty clear consensus that we did not want to split up the 20th century since there are compelling intellectual reasons for treating the century as a whole. At the same time, several of us are moving into the 21st century. We opted for 20th and 21st century American literature, even as we acknowledged that the centuries would probably have to be split out at some point–just not yet. Others may feel differently, but this was the discussion we had so I wanted to make sure it was registered.

Good effort but there are complexities not included in the title. We need a term that includes American Indians, Native Alaskans, Canadian Indigenous or First Nations–and, if possible Indigenous Hawaiians. While there are some Indians in Alaska, the U.S. Census categorizes Indigenous people as Native Alaskans (primarily Inuit and Iupiat) in recognition that they are a separate group.Indigenous Hawaiians are increasingly included in Native literature. Welcome to the World of Indigenous North America. I will attend the meeting to help clarify this.

I have kept a record of all comments exchanged on the SAIL listserv and discussed the issue with leadership in NAISA and NALS. While consensus is difficult to verify in an email format, the majority of individuals agreed on “Indigenous Literatures.” A robust conversation tracked the history of the field and included many good points about inclusion, exoticism and the implications of many different words, but most agreed that “Indigenous Literatures” is a broadly functional term at this time. Conversations about including “of the United States and Canada” ranged more widely and often depended on the personal, institutional or community context of the scholar. In many cases, these national references might be limiting and dependent upon the politics of recent centuries. However, in the specific landscape of MLA Forums where other groups clearly focus on the language and literature of South American nations, many felt it would be useful for us to balance the discussion with a northern conversation. We expect collaboration will bring many of these forums together. Therefore, it was suggested at the meeting that the Forum proposed in paragraph 21 of the document be “Indigenous Literatures of the United States and Canada.” I respectfully submit this suggestion in writing here and encourage others to reply.

I agree with Margaret Noodin’s assessment. Some questioned limiting “Indigenous Literatures” to the “United States and Canada.” In response, I sent out a detailed e-mail to the list serve of the Association for Study of American Indian Literatures, calling attention to the proposed category of “Interdisciplinary Connections” (183) which Includes “Indigenous Studies” (193). I also pointed out the existence of “Latina and Latino” (26), “Chicana and Chicano” (23), “Latin American” (80), and “Mexican” (86). I emphasized that these groups offered possibility for collaboration at MLA convention programs. Except for one scholar who lamented the loss of “American Indian,” the term we formerly used, I received no further questions about why “Indigenous Literatures” was limited to the United States and Canada.

In case the MLA committee working on restructuring groups is not familiar with the two abbreviations Margaret Noodin uses, here is a definition: NAISA–Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (an interdisciplinary group). NALS–Native American Literature Symposium.

I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups. We are happy to learn that the MLA took into consideration the remarks posted online about the first phase of the MLA reorganization. In total, there were five remarks (one was posted twice, so the overall number is five not six). Two remarks welcomed setting up a classical/post classical Arabic group, whereas three remarks did not agree with this direction. Moreover, two comments, out of those three, wished there were more emphasis on comparative and multilingual Arab literature. The online feedback has helped us reconsider our initial plans, and at the 2014 meeting of the Executive Committee and our division discussed how we could better serve our members.

As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”

Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.

Our diasporic panels have been among the most successful sessions in terms of proposal submission and attendance. Notwithstanding this success, our division cannot keep up with the vast volume of works that appear in English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese, among other languages, by authors with roots in the Arab-speaking world. Therefore, establishing a new, separate “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” forum is necessary.

Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.

By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).

We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.

Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.

The executive committee of this group was delighted about the prospect of changing our group name. At the beginning of the restructuring process, we requested that the name be changed to “Literatures and Cultural Studies in Canada” for reasons that are likely clear to MLA members: to reflect an increasing prevalence in the field of scholarship on texts that are outside of the strictly “literary” realm, and to acknowledge the fact that, for a variety of reasons, texts produced within Canada do not necessarily identify (i.e. do not want to be identified) as “Canadian” or “Canadian” only. The latter issue is important to us, and we are concerned with the fact that the new name that has been given to the group—“Canadian”—entrenches it in a nationalist category even while our field is increasingly less likely to define itself and the texts we study under the banner of the nation, and while much of the scholarship we conduct in the field is quite invested in the critique of such disciplinary adherences to the nation above other forms of categorization. It’s one thing to use the term “Canada” in our group name to signify a region in which cultural texts are produced (perhaps also to signify the fact that this nation might inform aspects of many of these texts), and another thing to say these texts are themselves “Canadian.” We would like to register here, as we did in a comment made on the previous draft, that we still prefer our initial requested name. If the MLA prefers shorter names, “Literatures in Canada” is more agreeable to us than the current suggested name of “Canadian.” We appreciate the work that is being done at the MLA to update the groups and the opportunities provided for input on the process.
From the executive committee,
Jennifer Blair
Pauline Wakeham
Jade Ferguson
Larissa Lai
Karis Shearer

I find the proposal made by the Executive Committee on 20th-Century Spanish a very valuable one (see Jo Labanyi’s comment on paragraph 106).
However, taking into consideration that two of the priorities guiding this revision are “the protection of small fields, including the study of less commonly taught languages” and “the attempt to minimize hierarchies and exclusions among fields, large and small” (see “Proposal Overview and Frequently Asked Questions”), an alternative would be to maintain Catalan (and Basque, Galician, Portuguese, and Spanish) as distinct “first level” forums (like French, Italian, Hebrew, etc) and create a forum on Iberia within the larger category of Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies.

I agree with Elisa Martí-López’s previous comment. The proposal for an Iberian umbrella is a valuable and refreshing one indeed. As a member of the Catalan Discussion Group, however, I also feel that an alternative is to maintain Catalan as a separate forum. I do not have categorical reasons to support this second option. One could say that maintaining Catalan as a separate forum is a way of not privileging the Iberian connections over other possible dialogues between Catalan culture and any of the cultures of the globe. But of course one can argue the opposite, namely that Catalan culture cannot be understood outside the Iberian context. But perhaps maintaining Catalan as a separate forum and then creating a forum on Iberia within the larger category of Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies, as Martí-López suggests, could be a satisfactory way of solving this unsolvable conundrum.
At any rate, a key point of agreement is that Catalan warrants two forums: one on Pre-Modern Catalan Studies and one on Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies. These elastic categories offer a vital periodization of the millenary history of Catalan culture, which is commonly divided into the medieval period from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, and the modern period from the end of the nineteenth century to the present.

From the Discussion Group on Catalan Language and Literature
We appreciate very much the priority given by the MLA in rethinking its structure to “the protection of small fields, including the study of less commonly taught languages” (http://groupsdiscussion.mla.hcommons.org/introduction/faq/). Consequently, the Discussion Group on Catalan Language and Literature welcomes the proposal to institute a “Catalan Forum” as it currently stands in the Jan. 3th, 2014 draft (http://groupsdiscussion.mla.hcommons.org/).
We would like to propose, however, two modifications to the current draft. First, we would like to see the Forum titled “Catalan Studies” instead of only “Catalan” in order to encompass a wider diversity of disciplines. Secondly, we believe that, given the millenary history of Catalan culture and also the growing interest in this field, Catalan warrants not one but two forums, one on “Pre-Modern Catalan Studies” and one on “Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies.”
The cultural production in Catalan, which spans the geographical areas of Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearic Islands, the Roussillon and Sardinia and traverses various “national” boundaries (Spain, France, Andorra, Italy), is commonly divided into two periods of especial intensity and prominence with distinct characteristics: the medieval and early modern period from the twelfth to the seventeenth centuries, and the modern and contemporary period from the eighteenth century to the present. We believe that the more elastic categories of “Pre-Modern Catalan Studies” and “Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies” can accommodate in a satisfactory way the two main divisions which structure our field. We are confident that these two proposed Catalan forums will serve as a lively space of intellectual exchange for the growing number of scholars working on Catalan culture.
We equally appreciate that our colleagues from the Executive Committee of the Division of 20th- and 21st-Century Spanish Literature support the creation of one or possibly two Catalan sub-forums under the umbrella of a new encompassing forum called “Iberia.” Catalan culture is an important part of the Iberian Studies field, and we welcome the long due acknowledgment, and the opening of more spaces for intellectual discussion. “Catalan Studies”, however, spans way beyond Iberia, and must continue to stand on its own. With a distinct forum on Catalan Studies we can freely engage with any interconnected field of study without being sidestepped to a subaltern position. We believe that a distinct Forum as the proposed in the aforementioned MLA revised draft, with the addition of our suggested modifications, is the right fit for what we envision as the future of Catalan Studies, one of the strongest emerging new fields of study in US academia. We are looking forward to continuing being a part of the MLA community.

We have gone with “English” as the large category rubric because there are other groups (Irish, Scottish, Gaelic (the latter under the comparative category of “Celtic”) that engage with the complex historical meanings of “British.”

Although Anglo-Saxonists regularly engage with a number of ancillary languages, Old English is our primary and common focus. Old Norse, Old Saxon, Old High German, Old Frisian, Latin, Welsh, Old Irish—the ambit of our studies could encompass most Northern European languages and literatures, but at the cost of significantly diluting ours and theirs. We nevertheless look forward to the opportunity of cooperating with other forums/fora in special sessions.

Please scroll down to read my comments at the site of the Old Norse group. Early British culture is multilingual and multicultural, but to assume that this might somehow be more usefully reflected by the merging of modern academic fields is to misunderstand the nature of the growth, theory, practice and successful futures (both pedagogically and in research) of those fields. Medievalists already work very closely together, but each particular area is specialized and distinct.

Chaucer and Shakespeare are the only forums on this map devoted to single authors. Colleagues in Chaucer studies have indicated that their work goes beyond what “Chaucer” signifies. We invite members to rename this forum in a way that may better reflect its scope.

I would like to urge that the title of this forum be retained as “Chaucer.” It is appropriate that this author, central to English literary history, be the central figure in this forum, no matter how much other work is done by those engaged in Chaucer studies. The wider scope of studies in Middle English literature is, in fact, already indicated by the “Middle English” forum. The combination of “Middle English” and “Chaucer” also fittingly parallels “16th-Century English” and “Shakespeare,” no matter how much those engaged in Shakespeare studies also work on matters that go beyond Shakespeare.

I, too, suggest that we keep it as a unique forum. Chaucer is such a tremendous pedagogical and scholarly category that he requires his own forum, just as he has his own bibliography (the “Chaucer Bibliography Online”). Richard’s parallel to the Shakespeare forum is also well made.

i agree with Richard Newhauser: let’s stick with Chaucer. I now teach Chaucer as a 101 course for our General Education requirement. No other Middle English author has the global reach implied by ‘Chaucer’, which enables the teaching of Islam and its trans-Mediterranean reach, the history of Jewish thought and anti-semitism, animal studies, militarism, gender, sexuality, and queer studies, etc. In a very real sense, in variety of genres and geographies, of class range and faith systems, of personalities and sexualities, Chaucer is much more ‘global’ than Shakespeare.

I agree with the above comments. I would add, I said in the earlier discussion, that keeping the designation Chaucer could help sway administrators that it is still worth retaining a dedicated Chaucer course, for many students (both majors and non-majors) the only opportunity to read medieval literature in the original language.

I also believe we should retain the Chaucer designation. Chaucer has long allowed scholars to think through new theoretical approaches. MLA panels on Chaucer always feature cutting-edge and emerging topics in the field of late medieval literary studies, and these sessions are never dedicated to Chaucer’s poetry alone.

I join the chorus of those who urge us to continue to have a division labelled “Chaucer.” As my colleagues have ably argued, keeping that designation makes sense in our classrooms, in our scholarship, and in our profession.

Two reasons we should retain the Chaucer designation: 1) it matches the central professional organization _within_ the field (i.e. the New Chaucer society), and 2) as a result, the arguably central journal in the field is also designated as Studies in the Age of Chaucer. Thus, the current MLA categories have the virtue of lining up with the internal categories organizing substantial research within the field.

I agree with the others above: let’s retain “Chaucer” here. The designation not only makes sense on professional grounds (see Lavezzo above) but also for pedagogical reasons. Teaching Chaucer often gives students an entry point into many medieval genres and discursive modes, and (as Wallace states above) Chaucer also has a certain global “reach” and import (including appropriation, adaptation into languages other than English and readership outside of Anglophone countries) that other medieval English authors do not have.

I agree with all of the above comments. It is important that MLA retain the Chaucer division. I strongly endorse my colleagues’ arguments. The uniqueness of Chaucer and Shakespeare as “the only forums on this map [the proposed renaming and reorganization of MLA Divisions] devoted to single authors” obscures the fact that these two authors had single-author status in 1974 – when the MLA last reorganized its divisions – for historically very different reasons. I cannot speak for Shakespeare, but I imagine that the special status of his author-function within the MLA is due in part to the fact that his works are universally taught in high-schools, colleges, and universities through the Anglophone world and beyond it, and that he is still regarded in the culture at large as a pre-eminent literary “genius,” transcending cultures, periods, and geographies. The operative set here is English Literature, of which Shakespeare forms the most conspicuous member (or so the story goes). Chaucer, on the other hand, had single-author status for very different reasons. He is not, in fact, the most conspicuous member of a single set – Middle English – but rather occupies a set of his own, one that overlaps with Middle English but is also distinct from it. Most of Middle English literature remained unknown until the late 18th century; Chaucer was the exception, his works having been continuously published, read, and received since his death in 1400. “Middle English” was only constituted as an object of study in the 1870s (through such institutions as the Roxburghe Club and the Early English Text Society, established in 1864, and which did not publish works by Chaucer). Frederick Furnivall established the Chaucer Society in 1868 to systematically publish Chaucer’s works. “Chaucer” has historically been separate from the rest of the field of Middle English; “Chaucer” has its own Society (the New Chaucer Society) and its own journal (Studies in the Age of Chaucer). There may be very good reasons for not perpetuating this state of affairs, but I want to emphasize not only that the analogy between Shakespeare and Chaucer is misleading (they are each configured very differently in relation to the larger field of English Literature of which they are a part) but also that there is a very real and continuing need to have Chaucer as a separate field within the MLA Divisions, precisely to allow for an engagement by medievalists in general with that complex and conflicted history.

I would also like to add that the medieval sessions (Old English, Middle English, and Chaucer) were some of the vibrant and active sessions on social media compared to other divisions (with the exception of DH). For instance, check out these stats on the #medievaltwitter hashtag.

I, too, join the chorus in favor of retaining ‘Chaucer’ as its own division. I especially agree with Kathy Lavezzo concerning how the field already organizes itself, and with David Wallace concerning the vitality and reach of Chaucer in both our research and our teaching.

I agree with all of the above comments. It is important that MLA retain the Chaucer division. I strongly endorse my colleagues’ arguments. The uniqueness of Chaucer and Shakespeare as “the only forums on this map [the proposed renaming and reorganization of MLA Divisions] devoted to single authors” obscures the fact that these two authors had single-author status in 1974 – when the MLA last reorganized its divisions – for historically very different reasons. I cannot speak for Shakespeare, but I imagine that the special status of his author-function within the MLA is due in part to the fact that his works are universally taught in high-schools, colleges, and universities through the Anglophone world and beyond it, and that he is still regarded in the culture at large as a pre-eminent literary “genius,” transcending cultures, periods, and geographies. The operative set here is English Literature, of which Shakespeare forms the most conspicuous member (or so the story goes). Chaucer, on the other hand, had single-author status for very different reasons. He is not, in fact, the most conspicuous member of a single set – Middle English – but rather occupies a set of his own, one that overlaps with Middle English but is also distinct from it. Most of Middle English literature remained unknown until the late 18th century; Chaucer was the exception, his works having been continuously published, read, and received since his death in 1400. “Middle English” was only constituted as an object of study in the 1870s (through such institutions as the Roxburghe Club and the Early English Text Society, established in 1864, and which did not publish works by Chaucer). Frederick Furnivall established the Chaucer Society in 1868 to systematically publish Chaucer’s works. “Chaucer” has historically been separate from the rest of the field of Middle English; “Chaucer” has its own Society (the New Chaucer Society) and its own journal (Studies in the Age of Chaucer). There may be very good reasons for not perpetuating this state of affairs, but I want to emphasize not only that the analogy between Shakespeare and Chaucer is misleading (they are each configured very differently in relation to the larger field of English Literature of which they are a part) but also that there is a very real and continuing need to have Chaucer as a separate field within the MLA Divisions, precisely to allow for an engagement by medievalists in general with that complex and conflicted history.

Actually I think it *is* valuable to have this comment appear here too. Ferguson’s question about the Chaucer forum mentioned Shakespeare but she didn’t ask about re-naming the Shakespeare forum over here — even if (as I understand it) work by Shakespeareans also goes further than what “Shakespeare” signifies (yes?). I’m just curious why some version of this question wasn’t also posted here.

Members made very clear objections to any amalgamations of divisions organized by historical period during the period between 1600 and 1837 (when Victoria came to the throne). Nonetheless, some members suggested that “comparative” amalgamations might be preferable to historical ones from an intellectual point of view, and some members embraced a possible amalgamation of the English 16th and 17th century divisions under the rubric of “Renaissance / Early Modern.” Please consider the numerical facts for this period: There are currently 12 guaranteed sessions for MLA divisions of English Literature focusing on the years between 1600 and 1837: these divisions are devoted to Shakespeare, the 16th c., the 17th c. the Restoration and Early 18th c., the late 18th c. and the Romantics. There are in addition 9 guaranteed sessions for topics in this period through its rich set of Allied Organizations: the Marlowe Society, the International Spenser Society, the Donne Society, the Society of Early Modern Women, the Renaissance English Text Society, the Milton Society the Byron Society, the John Clare Society of North America, and the Wordsworth-Coleridge Association. This makes for a minimum of 21 guaranteed sessions; more are possible through proposals for collaborative sessions, and there is also a guaranteed session for the Medieval and Renaissance Drama Society.

I would like add my voice to Toni’s and Eleanor’s voices thanking the committee for acknowledging the specific importance of the Restoration to our understanding of British literature and culture. Much important work on Anglophone literature and culture is being done in this period, and I’m delighted to see that MLA will continue to offer a venue for that work that gives access not only to 18thc specialists but also the organization’s wider membership.

Wonderful to see that MLA has responded to the outcry and decided to keep our divisions intact. Especial thanks to all those on the division executive committees, who wrote so eloquently on our behalves and alerted us to make our sentiments known.

Many thanks from me, too: thank you for the work done by the draft proposal committee; thank you for the opportunity, indeed the call, for members to respond (indeed, we met the call in droves); and thank you for hearing us.

A further, more global though: following the Open Hearing on Thursday night, I’ve been thinking about an issue that was raised during the Hearing. Most MLA members are (I think) are happy to see additional divisions/sessions rather than deletions or downsizings, and, yet, with too many additions and few deletions we could one day in the not-far future end up with a 6-day conference. I think we all tend to assume that a 6-day conference would be undesirable. And yet…there are other academic fields for which the main conference does last 5 or 6 days. We could, a few years down the road, consider seriously the possibility. Many attendees wouldn’t stay the whole time, but that’s already true. So, it’s a possibility to consider, maybe, in the future. This entire process has beneficially pushed us all to think outside our bounds to varying extents, so here’s another seemingly out-of-bounds possibility to consider!

I and my fellow members of the Executive Committee for the Later 18th Century Division are so very glad that the Working Group has listened – and preserved our two divisions. Thank you: this was an important decision. Great thanks as well to all my colleagues both in Restoration/Early C18 and Later C18 for coming together in support, as the remarkable community that you are.

At its business meeting on 12 January 2014, the Executive Committee of the Division of 20th C English Literature (D032) expressed unanimous concern that the breakup of D032 into two “fora” devoted to (1) English literature pre-1945 and (2) English Literature post-1945 was a serious disruption to current scholarly practice and would adversely affect its presentation at MLA.

The proposed temporal break would obstruct D032’s ability to responsibly represent what is currently a coherent field that widely references the long century under purview. As D032 is currently constituted, it includes research on global Anglophone literatures from “metropolitan” Britain as well as Commonwealth and postcolonial work across the long 20th century to the present. The “before” and “since” 1945 appears to be modeled on the proposed changes for other literatures (such as American, perhaps) where a break at 1945 might appear coherent. For D032, however, such a division would quite literally break what is a unified field and greatly limit scholarly dialogue across its temporal frame.

Moreover, Executive Committee members strongly feel that a temporal break of D032 into two would greatly disrupt the division’s mission to represent transformative scholarship on new and emerging modernism that today includes modernisms across the long twentieth century. D032’s past panels and roundtables amply represent scholarship as it has developed (in) the field (see MLA records since 2000; consider “Virginia Woolf and Colonial Writers” panel #609 at MLA 2014 for an example of thriving scholarship today that references the entire century—which D032 could not do if the proposed break is put in place).

The Executive Committee recognizes that at some future date, a temporal division break to 20th C English/Anglophone and 21st C English/Anglophone Lit may be merited, but given scholarship to date, that moment is not now.

At its business meeting on 12 January 2014, the Executive Committee of the Division of 20th C English Literature (D032) expressed unanimous concern that the breakup of D032 into two “fora” devoted to (1) English literature pre-1945 and (2) English Literature post-1945 was a serious disruption to current scholarly practice and would adversely affect its presentation at MLA.

The proposed temporal break would obstruct D032’s ability to responsibly represent what is currently a coherent field that widely references the long century under purview. As D032 is currently constituted, it includes research on global Anglophone literatures from “metropolitan” Britain as well as Commonwealth and postcolonial work *across the long 20th century to the present*. The “before” and “since” 1945 appears to be modeled on the proposed changes for other literatures (such as American, perhaps) where a break at 1945 might appear coherent. For D032, however, such a division would quite literally break what is a unified field and greatly limit scholarly dialogue across its temporal frame.

Moreover, Executive Committee members strongly feel that a temporal break of D032 into two would greatly disrupt the division’s mission to represent transformative scholarship on new and emerging modernism that today includes modernisms across the long twentieth century. D032’s past panels and roundtables amply represent scholarship as it has developed (in) the field (see MLA records since 2000; consider “Virginia Woolf and Colonial Writers” panel #609 at MLA 2014 for an example of thriving scholarship today that references the entire century—which D032 could not do if the proposed break is put in place).

The Executive Committee recognizes that at some future date, a temporal division break to *20th C English/Anglophone* and *21st C English/Anglophone Lit* may be merited, but given scholarship to date, that moment is not now.

The changes respond to member requests to find names that are more inclusive of Austrian, Swiss, and other German-language literatures. Germanophone is different from francophone: it does not result from Germany’s colonial history but instead refers to the multiple German-language literatures that are not fully reflected in the name “German.” We welcome member responses to this formulation.

Thanks to the committee for offering this formulation that will help the various germanophone studies areas negotiate more effectively with traditionalist scholarship and its nationalist bias.

Given the variability of what “German” means politically (with no version of that “state” having to date lasted even 50 years with anything close to identical borders), and the commitment of many intellectuals in the countries in various areas to consider “German” culture as absolutely not the sole property of “Germany”, this is a wonderful evolution. It acknowledges those eras when there were multiple centers of “German” culture as independent, entitled producers of culture, not burdened with any particular legacy of bowing to “the center,”, and might lead to some more culturally and historically sensitive session proposals.

“German and Germanophone,” “Dutch and Dutchophone” – please! I wonder what colleagues were thinking? This translation of “Francophone” across the board simply does not work. Imagine an interested reader from some other discipline opening our conference program and reading this nonsense. Wouldn’t this person be at a complete loss of what we are working on? In my opinion – and I am speaking as the chair of the division for 2oth-century German literature – this renaming would be a recipe for self-destruction.

How about “German Studies,” “Dutch Studies”?

Also, didn’t we initially set out to also rethink the century-based model?

While the discussion with colleagues at the open hearing clarified that “Germanophone” emulates “deutschsprachig” and is designed to include Austrian, Swiss, Yiddish etc, we are still opposed to this renaming, the three main arguments being:

1. There is no program that calls itself “Germanophone.” This renaming would be out of touch with common usage.

2. “LLC – Languages, Literatures, and Cultures” is already in plural. Hence, the renaming would create a tautology.

3. Our recognizable common ground is the German language. Clearly, none of us is waving the flag for Germany as a nation state.

Thanks to everyone who has put thought into this difficult rethinking of given categorizations!

At the open hearing at the MLA convention on Jan 10, the current and future chair of the Division for 20th Century German offered compelling arguments why the term “germanophone” is really inappropriate as a name for the entire division. Not one of the other divisions has a “phone” in its name (with the exception of Dutch), so why is German singled out for this? There is to my knowledge not one department in the world called Department of Germanophone Studies. No job description has ever been posted asking for a PhD in Germanophone literature and culture. And even literature departments in say Switzerland or Austria have no problem to use the term German in their title.

Let me underscore Deniz’s point. To eliminate the “germanophone” does not mean to deny multiplicity and diversity. On the contrary. “LLC ” stands for “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures;” All three terms are in the plural and are meant to recognize the plurality and multiplicity of things German. They cover cultural production in the German language in Germany or Austria or Switzerland; they serve perfectly fine to include the work of writers who write in German but are not German national, whereever and under whatever conditions they may write; they are not even in the way of addressing the work of say Turkish-German writers writing in Instabul or Berlin or Vienna or New York . LLC does more and more effectively than what “germanophone” is intended to do. I am quite certain that the LLC denominator will receive much greater support among the membership than “germanophone.” Significantly enough, no one raised an argument for “germanophone” during the open hearing in the audience–whereas various people spoke out against it.

P.S. The MLA’s spell checker underlined the word “germanophone” in read each time I typed it into this box. Could it be that the word does not even exist in the dictionary . . . :)?

Due to the Netherlands’ colonial history, the Dutch case is different from that of German. Authors from Suriname or Curaçao do not feel comfortable when their literature (if written in Dutch) is referred to as “Dutch literature”. I believe that this is a crucial difference with Austrian and Swiss authors writing in German. Despite this difference, I feel that our field would also benefit from a term that opens up to more diversity and that respects the cultural specificity of literature written in an Austrian or Swiss context. Instead of the artificially sounding terms Dutchophone and Germanophone, however, I would like to suggest the terms Dutch-speaking and German-speaking.

I write to voice my opposition to the proposal to rename this forum and its chronologically divided sub-groups “German and Germanophone.” We as colleagues have always understood the “German” of the MLA division title to include the multiple and diverse geographical areas in which literary and cultural expression is conducted in German. Indeed all of the broader MLA forums in the proposed category of “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures” explicitly invoke linguistic and not geographic designations. I agree with the comments above that the intentional emphasis on the plural in this heading already indicates the inclusivity of the forum. There is no consensus in the field around the term “Germanophone.”

Actually, the plural will not take care of anything. In practice, the “understanding” that “German” is a language and not a culture-nation is simply not in place. “Germanists,” of which I am one by training, simply ignore the different politics of the other German-speaking regions, including East Germany, except as “historical mistakes.” Not to rename these divisions is to buy into a continuation of the Cold War. Dewulf is right: “Germany” is a market, not a cultural space, for culture producers from other regions. Germanophone has been in use for over a decade, principally by a younger generation of non-German Germanists who have actually done their historical homework.

Addendum: to equate the scope of intellectual activities with department structures is absurd. The vast number of “German majors” exist as tracks in departments of Modern Foreign Languages, or German and Russian, or even “German, Scandinavian and Dutch.” Mine is “Germanic”. Any number of undergraduate “German” majors are actually “German studies majors” with language components that aggregate coursework from all over their campuses. A large number of graduate degrees in “German” are actually now in Comparative Literature programs. Institutional configurations do not reflect the structures of intellectual work in many of our fields, and CANNOT be taken as illustrative of anything but local finances.

that is a solution ONLY if the MLA then monitors that Austrian and Swiss authors aren’t uncritically lumped together as “German”. In other words, no “German” sections on Kafka, Rilke, Jelinek, Handke, Max Frisch, etc.

The reactions that the word “Germanophone” has provoked convince me that it is indeed the right word. I hope that its registers of openness and curiosity about language will allow “Germanophone” to trouble and to deepen the meanings and associations of “German.”

The MLA Forum Structure is important to me, because it serves as the taxonomy of our discipline. It is a scheme that identifies, describes, classifies, and codifies areas of scholarship. It also excludes discourses from scholarly consideration.
Although I may be slightly outside the field of this group in my scholarship (but not my teaching), I feel the urge to weigh in. In some ways, my position at the margin of your area may offer helpful you perspectives, since I perceive this entire process as an attempt to linguistically define the borders of a scholarly field. I very much hope that my reflections may help the decision-making process. I apologize in advance for the length and thanks to all of you for being so passionate about this process!
In my opinion, we should aim for the highest level of semantic precision and neutrality. If one contrasts the adjectives ‘German’ and ‘Germanophone,’ the most obvious semantic difference is that the former is more ambivalent than the later: ‘German’ has a double meaning and evokes both the idea of language and the idea of nation. ‘Germanophone,’ in contrast, refers only to language and avoids associations that relate to nation. Therefore, ‘Germanophone’ is the more precise classification for the many texts written in the German language that cannot be directly associated with Germany. ‘German,’ in contrast, if used to describe such texts, misidentifies and appropriates such literatures at best. At worst, the notion of ‘German literatures’ excludes these Germanophone texts entirely from scholarly consideration.
Obviously, contemporary examples of Germanophone literatures (that are NOT German literatures in that dual sense of the adjective described above) are texts by Austrian and Swiss authors. This alone should be enough to legitimize the adjective ‘Germanophone.’ If we go back in time, the need for this adjective becomes even more urgent. Let me bring up one example from the center of the canon: Theodor Storm’s oeuvre should be classified as Germanophone literature. Calling him a “German author” is not just confusing, but also inaccurate considering the double meaning of the adjective. He was born in 1817 in the town of Husum, which then was not part of the German Federation. A Danish citizen by birth and for most of his life, he was vehemently opposed to Prussia’s emerging influence in his region and referred to the territories of the German Federation as “Ausland.” Calling Theodor Storm a “German author” implies national affiliation that completely ignores geopolitical realities of pre-1871 Central Europe. A “Germanophone writer” throughout his life, Storm only became a “German author” later in life and – bizarrely – after his death. This happened in stages: In 1865, as a result of shifting borders, he became a Prussian citizen, which was part of the German Federation, and then in 1871, he finally became a citizen of the German Empire. After his death in 1877, Storm then became even “more German,” namely in the context of what Heinrich Detering (Goettingen) calls the “nationalliterarische Fixierung” of the Germanistik of the late 19th century. The academy, dominated by Prussian-protestant scholars, embraced authors from Walther von der Vogelweide to Storm as “German.” This was not motivated by the same naïve patriotism that earlier touched the Romaniker. For the mainstream of late 19th century Germanistik, the classification “German” with all its national connotations matched a particular political program that aimed at solidifying Germany’s territorial gains of 1871. For some, it inspired Grossdeutsche aspirations.
“German literatures” – due to the double meaning of the adjective and the fact that this double meaning has been ideologically instrumentalized – is therefore a problematic term. Not only is the adjective “Germanophone” semantically more precise, it is also ideologically more neutral. Admittedly, it may be perceive as ‘sperrig,’ however this inconvenience is an advantage, because it draws attention to the complex history of our field and signifies a break with this national literature tradition that the vast majority of our discipline has achieved already a long time ago. Indicating this change simply based on a plural form is inadequate, because in actual usage, the ‘s’ is dropped: People don’t say/write/think “Kafka is German literatures.” Therefore, we need to broaden our lexicon to reflect and advance desirable changes in our field on a semantic level, even if spellcheckers and letterheads disagree. Based on these considerations, I support the proposed change to the MLA Forum Structure.

To answer some of the nameless colleagues cited as opposing the concept of germanophone literatures, Prof. Wynfrid Kriegleder, a senior literature professor at the U of Vienna, Austria, offers the following statement. He is not an MLA member, but offers a perspective from one of those germanophone countries who know that they are not “German”:

TRANSLATION:

I am unfortunately not an MLA member, but am following this debate with amusement. Is it not time that the colleagues, male and female, in Germanistik give up on their Germany-provincialism?

As long as one says “German chancellor” and means by that Mrs. Merkel, it is obvious that the word “German” refers to a nation and not to a language. Naturally, then, one needs an English word that corresponds to the term “German-speaking” (deutschsprachig).

In a perfect world where there is institutional space to call it German, Austrian and Swiss Studies, something more general as Germanophone would not be needed. The problem is that particularly in North America, where MLA is most active, “German”– even when strictly intended to mean the language– too often suggests only Germany, even when publications include works by Austrian and Swiss authors (or refer to “Germanophone” writers, filmmakers, cultural discourses from Romania, South Tyrol, Luxembourg, etc.) While that is no problem if the text is actually about authors or culture from Germany, if it is about the German language, this monolithic association co-opts and/or shuts out other German language states, cultures, historical links, diasporas, etc. There is no “perfect” solution, except that the double term “German and Germanophone” does raise awareness of the diversity of the language/ historical region/country associations in the way simply “German” discourages it.

What I think has already been mentioned is that the concept of German-variant speaking cultures existing without suggesting colonialism is rather a positive thing. If German and Germanophone is ultimately not satisfying, then perhaps it should firmly be “German, Austrian and Swiss” –but then how to include German language literature not in those countries/cultures? LLC placed before or after “German” does not help expand the concept

Margaret Noodin, outgoing president of the Association for Study of American Indian Literatures, proposed at the open meeting that the title for the Division of American Indian Literatures become Indigenous Literatures of the United States and Canada. Before making this suggestion, Noodin consulted members of ASAIL and others in the field. They and others whom she and I consulted approved the title change. Yesterday, I sent an e-mail to ASAIL members discussing the change and pointing out to members the proposal’s inclusion of 183 “Transdisciplinary Connections” and 193 “Indigenous Studies.” In addition I noted such groups as 80–“Latin American” and 86–“Mexican” as well as 26–“Latina and Latino” and 23–“Chicana and Chicano.”

The committee has done an excellent job in developing major areas of interest and reorganizing the existing division and discussion groups.

First, thank you for taking the time and effort to account for member comments and to propose appropriate changes.

I hope my colleagues from Luso-Brazilian Studies will wish to make statements here; my concern has to do with the split between Brazil and the rest of the Portuguese-speaking world in this scheme. It seems only fitting that, if we are to create an escision between Luso and Hispano-phone literary and cultural studies, that “Brazilian” would correspond better with “Portuguese and Galician,” for which evidently a different heading on paragraph 90 would be necessary. Although the connection made between Portugal and Galicia is a logical one given the shared history and traditions between them, I wonder if this new organizational model would then perhaps foment a prohibition of the type of cross-border work between Hispanic and so-called “Lusophone” Studies in which many of us find inspiration. Finally, we may also want to consider that there is a push currently toward a more “Transatlantic” model for which we would need to read more closely what relational aspects we may put at risk with such a proposal. In that case, just as joining Brazil with the rest of the Portuguese-speaking World would make sense, the removal of a separation between Spain and the rest of the Hispano-phone World may also make sense.

Thank you again – I look forward to further discussion on these topics in a few days!

I have to disagree with my friend Robert Simon. I think the proposed new division alignment for the field of Luso-Brazilian Studies is fine. First of all, whereas right now we have only one division and one discussion group, under the proposed new structure we would have three divisions, allowing for wider member participation in MLA governance. The executive committee of the existing Luso-Brazilian Division has always tended to be Brazil-heavy (right now all five members work primarily on Brazil). The new alignment would give a stronger voice to colleagues who work primarily on Portugal and Lusophone Africa. I understand Simon’s concern about a possible “split” between Brazil and the rest of the Lusophone world, but I don’t believe that has to be the case. We can, and probably will organize cooperative sessions across the new divisions. Furthermore, if I understand the reorganization correctly, the American Portuguese Studies Association (APSA), as an allied organization, will continue to be able to organize sessions, alone or in cooperation with the new divisions. As a former President of APSA I am confident that the association would be open to the idea that its sponsored sessions at MLA conventions should strive to focus on the Portuguese-speaking world broadly conceived. Therefore, as long as the three new divisions set the tone, as it were, by working together from the very beginning, the field will emerge a stronger participant in future MLA conventions and in MLA governance.

It’ll also be important for colleagues who work on Brazil to have stronger participation in some of the “Latin American” divisions, such as, for instance, Colonial Latin America. Latin American is often erroneously equated with Spanish-American. I mentioned the “Colonial” division because I believe it’s probably the ideal place to strengthen the collaboration between scholars oriented towards Portuguese America and towards Spanish America. It wasn’t unusual for writers such as Gregório de Matos Guerra to write in both Portuguese and Spanish. Furthermore there is a growing number of young scholars who were on both Brazil and Spanish America (Rob Newcomb, Richard Gordon, Tracy Guzmân, Thayse Lima, etc.), and who have followed on the footsteps of pioneers such as Leopoldo Bernucci, Lucia Costigan and others.

Let me take this opportunity to thank Marianne for her leadership in this needed reorganization of the MLA division structure.

Correction: I meant “there is a growing number of young scholars who WORK [not were] on both Brazil and Spanish America. Also, the correct spelling of Tracy’s name is GUZMÁN, not Gumân. I apologize, but I’ve never been the greatest typist in the world.

I Believe that I have evidently not made clear my point above. I was not speaking of adding the “Brazilian” division as part of another division; rather, I meant to criticize constructively the notion that the “Brazilian” division would be placed in a group other than that of “Portuguese and Galician.” My dear friend and colleague was right in calling attention to this unclear bit of writing on my part.

In any case, and as I mentioned during the 9 January session on the proposed division / group structure, I support the proposal with the exception of the point noted above.

I’m always concerned re. the exclusion of Brazil from Latin America, although I realize that being its own Division (or Forum) guarantees the minimum attention Brazilian lit. needs and deserve. I can only encourage our colleagues in Spanish American Lit to make an effort to include Brazil in their panels and sessions, given that there’s so much in common, historically and culturally among these countries. Not to forget, of course, Brazil’s strong historical and cultural ties to Portugal.

I think it’s something similar to Galicia and its’ linguistic relationship with Portugal and, at the same time, cultural and political connections to Spain (re. Fra-Molinero’s comment).

But considering the numbers of scholars and academic programs in the US and Canada that work with Brazilian, Portuguese, and other Lusophone literatures (since most participating in the convention are from these two countries), I’m wondering if it’s indeed an equitable division to have one forum for Brazil, one for Portugal and Galicia, and one for other Lusophone countries. I’m assuming each forum would be allotted the same number of sessions or panels.

I agree with Luiz Valente as to the names of the divisions. I also think that Brazil should be under Latin America. True, there are reasons to stress the literary ties between Brazil and Portugal, but I think that in the recent debates there is more reason to connect it with Latin America: studies of diaspora, slavery, indigeneity, post/colonialism, not to mention traditional fields of comparison such as Brazil/Argentina, Brazil/Mexico, etc. As Luiz indicates, there is not reason why we should not organize collaborative sessions with the Continental Lusophone division.

Portugal is a Nation State with a very rich literary tradition; Galicia is a nationality included in the Spanish Nation State, like Catalonia (so far, at least). Galician Literature, like Catalan or Basque literatures, is a entirely different literary tradition, with a different language, a different tradition and a different culture. While the relation between Portugal and Galicia is one of friendship and respect, these two literatures are completely different. It isn’t fair to either one to share the same space. Both deserve a space of their own. Why does Catalonia merit its own forum while Galicia (with a large and internationally renowned literature) doesn’t? Would we include Catalonia with France? The Basque country with France? Why Galicia with Portugal? As a scholar and teacher dedicated to both Spanish and Galician literature, and in a more private way, to Portuguese literature as well, I would like to respectfully state that this sharing doesn’t make any sense.

Given that the original petition (which I signed) was to establish a new group on Galician studies, I’d be interested to hear how and why the scope of the group was expanded to include Portuguese. Those making this decision may not be aware of its significant political and ideological impact: effectively, they are taking a stand in favor of “reintegracionismo,” a controversial position that posits that Galician and Portuguese are not different languages and that therefore Galicians should “reintegrate” culturally with Portugal. I cannot imagine that this was the intention, but the merging of the two discussion groups could certainly be portrayed as one more controversial political statement on the part of the MLA.

While I’m delighted that MLA has responded to members’ requests for a Galician forum, I’m surprised to find Galician included under ‘Continental Lusophone’ in the proposed structure. Like Daniel (above), I’d like to see Galician with its own forum. Galician Studies is a rapidly-growing field of study that crosses linguistic, national and even continental borders. While the Galician language shares a history with Portuguese (hence, I assume, its inclusion here under Lusophone), and Galicia has been part of the Spanish state since its inception, neither affiliation really gives the discipline the space it needs. Galician culture is inherently diasporic, with significant nodes in Europe, the Caribbean and South America – and an independent forum would give us the space to explore these networks to the full.

As one of the more than 300 members that submitted a formal letter of request to the MLA Executive Committee last year, petitioning the creation of a long-overdue “Galician Studies Group”, I, too, am delighted with the consultation through this MLA Commons. However, I strongly believe that Galicia deserves its own forum. Historically, the medieval kingdom of Galicia predates the existence of the kingdoms of both Portugal and Spain and, while the region has had close ties with both, it retains its separate identity. In contemporary terms, the current “Portugal and Galicia” forum proposal does not really address the needs and peculiarities of the growing field of Galician Studies today, with its inherently transnational and transcontinental specificities and histories. Like my colleagues above, I suggest that Galicia be given the same status as other national cultures and languages (e.g. Catalan), one that it has long deserved. I strongly advocate for a separate Galician Studies Forum.

I completely agree with all other colleagues who support and advocate on this MLA Commons for a separate Galician Studies group. Most of the reasons why MLA should create such a group have already been named. In any case, I’d like to add that the group of scholars interested/working on Galician Studies is highly diverse. As previously mentioned, GS is relevant not only for European Portuguese Studies, but also for Brazilian Studies, due to the Galician diaspora as well as to Sociolinguistic reasons. Yet, GS is also extremely relevant in Spanish/Hispanic/Iberian/Latin American perspectives, not to mention other highly relevant areas, such as Cultural, Transatlantic, Postcolonial, Celtic, or Romance Studies, among others.

Other unpublished data from this ongoing survey also support that Galician Studies does not fit in any existing wider umbrella under the Language, Literature & Cultures MLA section.

And last but not least, the existence of a similarly positioned group such as the Catalan one also indicates that Galician should enjoy a similar status. Given the overwhelming evidence, a different option would be perceived by most MLA members as an unjustified marginalization of Galician Studies.

Please see the comment of the Executive Committee of the Division on 20th Century Spanish Literature posted under Paragraph 106 “Spanish.” Our comment affects the proposal for “Portuguese and Galician.”

Perhaps it would be clearer simply to state “Portugal and Galicia”, as the only other “Lusophone” region in Iberia beside Galicia is Portugal.

Also, upon consultation with several colleagues, we feel it very appropriate to have Brazilian Studies included in the currently titled “Portuguese and Galician” group. This would be more appropriate given the literary and cultural ties between the Portuguese-speaking regions which may not necessarily exist with such depth between, say, Brazil and Mexico.

I support the creation of a distinct forum for Galician Studies. It should be separate from Portuguese or even Brazilian literary studies, given the history of Galician letters as compared to Portuguese or Brazilian literature.

While I’m pleased to see there will be a space for discussing Galician Studies outside of Spanish Studies it seems lumping it together with Portuguese literature will be just as problematic. I personally support Galician Studies being a distinct forum.

Scholars in North America working in Galician Studies, however problematically, seem to be doing so largely from departments of Hispanic and Latin American Studies. I’d even dare say that if one looks at the most recent MLA Programs, when there have been presentations on Galician Studies that weren’t part of an all-Galician panel, scholars seem to present on panels about Spanish and Iberian culture/literature. Galician studies clearly needs increased visibility and institutionalization to be acknowledged as more than a subcategory of Spanish literature, but having that conversation within a Lusophone context isn’t going to do justice to the transnational and multilingual contexts in which Galician writers and scholars work.

I support establishing an autonomous section devoted to Galician studies. Fully agree with Danny Barreto. I will add that the MLA would be perpetrating a marginalizing move very much against the spirit that our organization claims to embrace vis-à-vis minoritized cultures.

Portugal is a Nation State with a very rich literary tradition; Galicia is a nationality included in the Spanish Nation State, like Catalonia (so far, at least). Galician Literature, like Catalan or Basque literatures, is a entirely different literary tradition, with a different language, a different tradition and a different culture. While the relation between Portugal and Galicia is one of friendship and respect, these two literatures are completely different. It isn’t fair to either one to share the same space. Both deserve a space of their own. Why does Catalonia merit its own forum while Galicia (with a large and internationally renowned literature) doesn’t? Would we include Catalonia with France? The Basque country with France? Why Galicia with Portugal? As a scholar and teacher dedicated to both Spanish and Galician literature, and in a more private way, to Portuguese literature as well, I would like to respectfully state that this sharing doesn’t make any sense.

In my opinion Galician Studies deserves its own division. After the medieval period Galician and Portuguese letters developed in separate directions. Therefore I second my colleagues who support the separation of Portuguese (or “Continental Lusophone”) and Galician.

I support creation of an independent division for Galician Studies. Portugal has not embraced Galicia as a sister state with convergent concerns nor the Galician language as another Portuguese language and literature. Galicians do not derive their sense of identity or cultural accomplishment from affiliation with Portuguese literary or linguistic traditions. While there’s a sense of a shared history on either side of their friendly and unguarded border, and although their tongues are mutually accessible, each deserves independent attention much as the US and Canada can be honored as distinct cultural bodies.

In order to keep the intrinsic interdisciplinary, multicultural, and bilingual nature of Galician Studies, Galician needs to have its own forum within the MLA. Linking Galician studies with Portuguese only separates it from the Spanish studies area where a good number of research projects in Galician is conducted. Having its own forum will allow Galician studies to grow and develop free from national and ideological borders. I strongly support the creation of an independent division for Galician Studies.

As you know, ON and OE share a good deal of early history, arguably as much as French, Italian, and Spanish do. But unlike Romance languages that emerged from within a common Roman Imperial culture, ON developed outside the Roman Empire and, culturally, was very late to adopt Christianity, Roman institutions, books, and prose writing. ON and OE languages and cultures are distinct enough to make any long-term collaboration a challenge. Moreover, the long academic and institutional history of the disciplines would add significant if not impassible barriers to a merger.

Perhaps equally important is that Old Norse is often taught within the context of Germanic Studies, in German Departments, as here at Stanford. Old English, on the other hand, is taught, generally, in English Departments, by English specialists. That’s not to say that there isn’t crossover (as there is, and should be, indeed, between Early Middle English and Old French, or Anglo-Latin and Theology), but these are not mergeable fields/sub-disciplines by virtue of their chronological, or linguistic proximity. There’s a whole academic article here, which someone somewhere could write.

From: Executive Committee of 20th-century Spanish Literature Division
Comments on the Revised Draft of MLA Forums
Our comments affect the forums in the following proposed groups:
· Catalan
· Portuguese and Galician
· Spanish
We feel that the current proposal does not sufficiently recognize the four languages/cultures of Spain: Spanish, Catalan, Galician, Basque. We do not feel it makes sense to group Galician and Portuguese together; although the languages have much in common, their cultures have very different histories. We thus feel there should be a separate forum for Galician, and another separate forum for Basque (which at present does not appear at all). We also feel strongly that Catalan warrants two forums, since its cultural production prior to 1900 is very substantial. We are mindful here of the priority given by the MLA in rethinking its structure to “the protection of small fields, including the study of less commonly taught languages” (http://groupsdiscussion.mla.hcommons.org/introduction/faq/).
We suggest that the present separate groups for Catalan, Portuguese and Galician, and Spanish be put under the single common umbrella “Iberian.” This would not in any way diminish the importance of Portuguese, nor of Catalan (indeed we propose increasing Catalan from one forum to two).
We find the term “Continental Lusophone” unclear (both Brazil and Lusophone Africa are “continental”) and propose the wording “Lusophone outside of Portugal and Brazil.” We also proposal a parallel panel “Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas” to allow coverage of Equatorial Guinea, Western Sahara, North Morocco, and the Philippines, as well as migrant communities in Western Europe and Australia.
We also find it anomalous that the two forums proposed for early modern Spanish literature remain, as at present, divided according to genre: one on 16th and 17th century Spanish poetry and prose; the other on 16th-and 17th-century Spanish drama. There is no similar division by genre for the other languages/cultures, and it seems an artificial division since many writers wrote in several genres. A simple solution would be one forum on 16th- and 17th-century Spanish; however, we appreciate that our early modern colleagues are likely to want to keep two forums, in which case we suggest one forum on 16th-century Spanish and another on 17th-century Spanish.
We therefore propose the following, and invite comments from our colleagues in Portuguese and Early Modern Spanish:Iberian
· Medieval Iberian
· Basque
· Catalan
o Catalan before 1900
o Catalan after 1900
· Galician
· Portuguese
o Peninsular Portuguese
o Lusophone outside of Portugal and Brazil
· Spanish
o 16th- and 17th-century Spanish (or 2 forums: 16th-century Spanish + 17th-century Spanish)
o 18th- and 19th-century Spanish
o 20th-and 21st-century Spanish

I agree thoroughly with Prof. Labanyi. The categorization of literature and culture of the Iberian Peninsula that she proposes is as accurate and meaningful as it can be. I like particularly the last category, Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas. This gives us the opportunity to discuss aspects of Hispanic culture in Africa. Cultural and historical relations between the Iberian Peninsula and the entire African continent are vast. The Modern Language Association would do well to acknowledge this reality.

I find the proposal made by the Executive Committee on 20th-Century Spanish a very valuable one.

However, taking into consideration that two of the priorities guiding this revision are “the protection of small fields, including the study of less commonly taught languages” and “the attempt to minimize hierarchies and exclusions among fields, large and small” (see “Proposal Overview and Frequently Asked Questions”), an alternative would be to maintain Catalan (and Basque, Galician, Portuguese, and Spanish) as distinct “first level” forums (like French, Italian, Hebrew, etc) and create a forum on Iberia within the larger category of Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies.

I thank the Executive Committee of 20th- Century Spanish Literature for this proposal; the reorganization under the umbrella of Iberian studies seems natural. I particularly welcome the space proposed for “Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas”. This is a much needed and long overdue unit and deserves a forum of its own. Almost a year ago now a petition letter for the creation of such forum, endorsed by 128 scholars, was submitted to the MLA. It is good to see that the petition is being echoed now as an amendment to this second draft.

I am also glad to see a proposal for a Galician forum, perhaps even under this umbrella of Iberian Studies. However, for a debate on the rationale and need for an independent Galician studies forum I subscribe to the comments already posted above under paragraphs 90 and 91 of this draft.

Whether or not the currently proposed forums on Catalan, Galician, Portuguese, and Spanish are established either as separate forums (as it is the case with other languages) or under the umbrella of Iberian, I think it is important to request (as the proposal submitted by Jo Labanyi does) the creation of a space for Basque, which is not contemplated in the 3 January 2014 draft. This would be consistent with the MLA priority to protect the study of less commonly taught languages.

I strongly support the creation of a “Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas” forum. This is an already significant and rapidly-growing area of study that has developed largely within the academic programs represented by the MLA, but that has not been represented within the existing MLA division structure. This is an ideal opportunity to bring the MLA structure in line with current trends in the field.

I strongly support the creation of a “Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas” forum. Such a forum would give recognition and structure to a growing subfield within Hispanic studies. I know of a number of scholars who are currently working on cultural and literary relations between Spain and Africa – with a particular emphasis on Morocco and Equatorial Guinea. The new forum will bolster this surge in scholarly interest in Hispano-African relations, and it will also create a space for other Hispanophone literatures (such as Hispanophone literature from the Philippines) that have received less scholarly attention.

Thanks to my colleague and friend Luiz Fernando Valente for clarifying this position. Please allow me to rephrase my previous statement, as I had obviously not made my position clear. I agree that there should be all three division proposed, rather than having only one division for all Portuguese-speaking areas of study (as is the case presently). The “division, to which I referred as undesirable was the separation of the “Brazilian” division from the “Portuguese and Galician” group of divisions.

As for fomenting connections between Brazil and Latin America, this is an issue which has led, and will lead, to further discussion among colleagues on the nature of work being done from within a comparative framework. I hope to see this continued dialog come to fruition in this forum sooner than later.

Note that a split of periods along genre lines is unique to Spanish among languages represented in the MLA. If these two 16th and 17th century Spanish forums agree to merge, they can have 4 guaranteed sessions for the next five years.

Note that Spanish chooses to group itself as 16th and 17th century poetry/prose and 16th and 17th century drama where other European divisions choose to lump all genres together but have separate divisions for 16th and 17th century. The specialization by genre rather than century is the way that early modern Spanish courses are taught and that positions are created in larger depts that have more than one early modern specialist. It makes no disciplinary sense to combine these 2 Spanish groups into one –for the same reasons it would be a bad idea to combine 16th and 17th century French or English lit into one unit.

In addition, serving on an MLA executive committee is an important professional marker. Combining the 2 groups would reduce the opportunities for service and recognition within early modern Spanish studies and also limit the possibility for ascension into the higher ranks of MLA offices, where Hispanists are already under represented. Having a single committee oversee 4 sessions does not solve this issue

Finally, mergers might also skew the composition of committees unless extreme care were taken to include all 3 genres (this is the same issue that would likely cause the much smaller group of 16c French scholars to reject a merger with the 17 century division)

The two forums already have 4 guaranteed sessions between them; does this mean if they do NOT agree to merge they will lose sessions? This should be clarified.

There are practical, disciplinary and historical reasons for the two separate fields. Both are huge classical literary fields, equal in individual importance and historical relevance to Spanish literature as are those genres are in English. I echo Barbara Simerka’s comment that it makes no disciplinary sense to combine them.

As an affiliated organization, the Cervantes Society of America often submits joint sessions with both Poetry and Prose, and Theater; the possibility for collaborations might be reduced if this merger were to occur, thus reducing our early modern Spanish sessions and presence even more.

To merge Spanish comedia (which has had 3 guaranteed sessions in the past) and two journals (Bulletin of the Comediantes and Comedia Performance) and its own banquet session would be a grave error. It is textually and thematically different from poetry and prose. Would specialists in Shakespeare suggest merging sessions on Shakespeare with prose and poetry of the seventeenth century, I ask our colleagues in English? If Shakespeare has a mere 37-39 plays (with new discoveries), how can one justify the rich corpus of texts that make up the comedia (with 300+ extant texts of Lope de Vega alone)? It is not for naught that Jonathan Bate, in The Genius of Shakespeare, posits that “if the Counter-Reformation had stamped out Protestantism of the Spanish Armada had succeeded in 1588…who then would have become the world-genius of literature?” Bates’s answer is unabashedly that “Will Shakespeare (born 1564) would have met his match in Lope de Vega (born 1562). Lope de Vega, not Shakespeare was the Mozart of literature.”

It is disconcerting that colleagues outside the field would attempt to make global assumptions about how another field works, or what its needs and contributions are. It is admirable to be inclusive of other languages and literatures, but not at the expense of demolishing a long established division. Prose, poetry, and drama would all suffer.

Interestingly, why is Spanish drama being virtually singled out? French divisions seen not to be so affected by this proposed restructuring….

Nurture the new but sustain the sessions of a vibrant and cutting edge genre.

Susan L. Fischer, Professor emerita of Spanish and Comparative Literature, Bucknell University, 45 year life member of MLA.

I echo Barbara Simerka’s sentiments about dividing the Spanish Golden Age along genre lines. At Cornell, I took courses like “Mystics and Moralists” and “Picaresque Novel” (Poetry and Prose Division), “Calderón de la Barca” and “Golden Age Theater” (Drama division). We don’t have a “Cervantes” division, a “Lope de Vega” or “Calderón” division, but we should not compress our two existing divisions into one monster division at the same times as we consider expanding the number of divisions on the Latin American side of things.

I do not understand the purpose behind this proposal. Both Spanish 16th and 17th century divisions are intellectually vibrant groups with active participants who are strong supporters of and contributors to MLA. Very few of us specialize in 16th- OR 17th-century Spanish literature, but we often identify ourselves as specialists in a particular genre of the entire Early Modern period (or “Golden Age”).

The proposal betrays a lack of understanding about Spanish literary history and its associated critical discourse.

Is the suggestion that a merged division would be guaranteed four sessions each year for five years meant to seem like an advantage of some kind, or should it be read as a veiled threat?

As expressed by my colleagues, the suggestion for homogeneity from outside the field shows a lack of knowledge of the field itself. It would be more useful to ask ‘why’ the field divisions are structured as they are before suggesting a change to that structure. Presenting something ‘unique’ as something that needs to be ‘fixed’ so as to conform to an outside model is a surprisingly shortsighted and, frankly, colonial attitude inconsistent with my own reading of MLA’s openness. I add my voice to those rejecting this ‘note.’

I’m trying very hard to imagine the benefit of such a merger, and the best I can come up with would be the (very) infrequent thematic-theoretical topic that might apply equally to all three genres (e.g. Seneca in early modern Spanish literature, or Cultural production in early modern Spain). As interesting as those sessions might be, I cannot help but think that the promised 4 sections (which, as Susan Fischer notes, is already down from what it used to be) would almost assuredly be divvied up as 1 section on drama, 1 section on poetry, one section on prose, and one open topic or rotating section. In no way do I see this as a positive development. I strongly encourage leaving the 2 divisions dedicated to 16th and 17th century Spanish literature as they are.

I’d like to echo Steven Wagschal’s questions. If the forums do not merge would there be fewer than 4 guaranteed sessions? I don’t understand the stakes or the potential benefits. I also would like to comment about the following: “a split of periods along genre lines is unique to Spanish among languages represented in the MLA.” First, my understanding is that a forum such as “16th- and 17th-Century Spanish Poetry and Prose” represents a national (or proto-national) or regional tradition and not a “language.” Second, it strikes me as relatively common to sift apart elements within a given century or period. I don’t know if you are suggesting that we should do things like English and have a “Cervantes” forum (a la “Shakespeare”) rather than prose and poetry, but I like the more capacious forum.

If the goal of the MLA proposal is to organize languages homogeneously so they look clean and pretty, then this change makes a lot of sense. However, if the goal is to try to better accommodate the research done in the field of early modern Spanish literature, then it is almost sure to fail. The assurance of keeping the same number of sessions for the next five years is, for me, besides the point. The bigger issue is that the field of early modern Spanish literature is not organized by centuries, but by genres. If the MLA makes the change, then they will have a nicely organize set of divisions, but they will also have taken a step away from how the members of those division see their specialties and identify themselves and, perhaps, even two steps farther from how our courses are taught, and how our research is published. In summary, the divisions will be at risk of looking pretty at the cost of becoming irrelevant for its members and then, then they might just walk away.

There doesn’t seem to be a strong enough rationale for merging these two divisions and there are a lot of reasons for keeping them as they are. The genre divisions allow us to create coherent and precise conversations in a field of Early Modern primary texts that is complex and rich. Theses aren’t necessarily conversations about genre per se, but explorations of shared theoretical frameworks, questions of models and reception, etc. Spanish Drama merits its own space. I am strongly in favor of maintaining what is in place with 4 guaranteed sessions.

Emended version; I apologize for the garbled earlier version (technology is wonderful when it works! sf)
To merge Spanish comedia, which has had 3 guaranteed sessions in the past and two journals (Bulletin of the Comediantes and Comedia Performance), and its own banquet session, would be a grave error, in my view. It is textually and thematically different from poetry and prose. Would specialists in Shakespeare suggest merging sessions on Shakespeare with prose and poetry of the seventeenth century, I ask our colleagues in English? If Shakespeare has a mere 37-38 plays (with new discoveries), how can one justify the rich corpus of texts that make up the comedia (with 300+ extant texts of Lope de Vega alone)? It is not for naught that Jonathan Bate, in The Genius of Shakespeare, posits that “if the Counter-Reformation had stamped out Protestantism and if the Spanish Armada had succeeded in 1588…who then would have become the world-genius of literature?” Bate’s answer is unabashedly that “Will Shakespeare (born 1564) would have met his match in Lope de Vega (born 1562). Lope de Vega, not Shakespeare was the Mozart of literature.”
It is disconcerting that colleagues outside the field would attempt to make global assumptions about how another field works, or what its needs and contributions are. It is admirable to be inclusive of other languages and literatures, but not at the expense of demolishing a long-established division. Prose, poetry, and drama would all suffer.
Interestingly, why is Spanish drama being virtually singled out? French divisions seem not to be so affected by this proposed restructuring….
Nurture the new but sustain the sessions of a vibrant and cutting-edge genre.

Susan L. Fischer, Professor emerita of Spanish and Comparative Literature, Bucknell University, 45 year life member of MLA.

I concur with the remarks made by my colleagues: the two genre-based divisions represent the two existing areas of specialization within sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish studies. It seems logical that our MLA divisions most accurately represent the fields in which we work.

I also concur with everything written by my colleagues to explain why the change proposed is unfortunate. It denies our two existing areas of research and therefore specialization. How fruitful and vibrant are these two can be picture by these two facts,

1. Yesterday, it was announced that a play written by Lope de Vega was rescued from ignoto mundo by one of us, Dr. Garcia Reidy from Siracuse University. The discovery of this manuscript can only be compared to finding a play by William Shakespeare that was never edited. I am sure that his finding will originate a very intense discussion on the panels organized by the 16th and 17th century drama in the next MLA.

2. In Chicago, in April there will be a National Symposium on Cervantes’s Works . A venue that will help to launch the themes for the next MLA panels hosted by the 16th and 17th century prose and poetry division.

Marianne,
As my colleagues in Spanish have stated, the proposal submitted reflects an utter incomprehension of the way scholarship in Early Modern Spanish functions. May we suggest, in turn, that English Renaissance literature should be reorganized according to the same criteria, with only two categories: 16th and 17th century literature, which should include poetry, drama, and prose, including Shakespeare? This would make things easier for everyone involved, and there would be no inequalities and differences between disciplines, languages,mand periods.
I agree with all the colleagues in Spanish who have written in regard to the advisability of such decision. I do hope you take into account our protest and commentaries. Susan L. Fischer and Adrienne Martin have eloquently explained the reasons behind our current session divisions. I concur with their views.
María Antonia Garcés
Cornell University

I’ve read the letter introducing the new forum structure as well as the FAQs. The rationale for this recommended change is not stated and the relationship between this proposal and the objectives presented to members is not clear. What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this recommendation? As far as the “reduction of Eurocentric disciplines” goes, let us recall that Spain inherited a tri-part culture unique in Europe, one that can hardly be called simply European.

Regardless, my colleagues have eloquently explained the intellectual justification for the present fields.

As many other colleagues have stated in their comments, the proposal to merge early modern Spanish drama with prose and poetry will only hinder the research presented at the MLA and the intellectual discussions that it generates. This suggested change in the structure of the divisions offers no benefits to scholars and goes against the dynamics of research and teaching in these fields in the US and abroad. Special sessions can be organized for topics that aim to connect all three genres, and there is a logic behind the current division between the drama division and the poetry and prose division (genres which should actually have their individual divisions due to the vast amount of research that each one generates, may I add), which my colleagues have already clearly presented.

I strongly support the sensible comments of my colleagues. The proposal seems capricious, sadly ignorant of how the most current research in this vibrant, growing field is conducted, and inconsistent with the divisions being maintained in other fields like English and French.

I would like to echo Barbara Simerka’s and other colleagues’ comments on paragraph 108, but from the perspective of a drama specialist. The theatrical life of early modern Spain, both in terms of texts and of the variety of cultural forms originated and performed, continues to merit, from my point of view, a separate division. As one of the first commercial venues of cultural production in early modern Europe, the Renaissance/Baroque theater involves issues noticeably different from those of the poetry and prose of the same period. Furthermore, as the number of classical dramatic texts read and written about continues to decrease, it behooves us to keep the incredible wealth of Hispanic classical theater before the eyes of humanities scholars and the general public.

To merge Spanish comedia (which has had 3 guaranteed sessions in the past) and two journals (Bulletin of the Comediantes and Comedia Performance) and its own banquet session would be a grave error. It is textually and thematically different from poetry and prose. Would specialists in Shakespeare suggest merging sessions on Shakespeare with prose and poetry of the seventeenth century, I ask our colleagues in English? If Shakespeare has a mere 37-39 plays (with new discoveries), how can one justify the rich corpus of texts that make up the comedia (with 300+ extant texts of Lope de Vega alone)? It is not for naught that Jonathan Bate, in The Genius of Shakespeare, posits that “if the Counter-Reformation had stamped out Protestantism of the Spanish Armada had succeeded in 1588…who then would have become the world-genius of literature?” Bates’s answer is unabashedly that “Will Shakespeare (born 1564) would have met his match in Lope de Vega (born 1562). Lope de Vega, not Shakespeare was the Mozart of literature.”

It is disconcerting that colleagues outside the field would attempt to make global assumptions about how another field works, or what its needs and contributions are. It is admirable to be inclusive of other languages and literatures, but not at the expense of demolishing a long established division. Prose, poetry, and drama would all suffer.

Interestingly, why is Spanish drama being virtually singled out? French divisions seen not to be so affected by this proposed restructuring….

Nurture the new but sustain the sessions of a vibrant and cutting edge genre.

Susan L. Fischer, Professor emerita of Spanish and Comparative Literature, Bucknell University, 45 year life member of MLA.

Emended version; I apologize for the garbled earlier version (technology is wonderful when it works! sf)
To merge Spanish comedia, which has had 3 guaranteed sessions in the past and two journals (Bulletin of the Comediantes and Comedia Performance), and its own banquet session, would be a grave error, in my view. It is textually and thematically different from poetry and prose. Would specialists in Shakespeare suggest merging sessions on Shakespeare with prose and poetry of the seventeenth century, I ask our colleagues in English? If Shakespeare has a mere 37-38 plays (with new discoveries), how can one justify the rich corpus of texts that make up the comedia (with 300+ extant texts of Lope de Vega alone)? It is not for naught that Jonathan Bate, in The Genius of Shakespeare, posits that “if the Counter-Reformation had stamped out Protestantism and if the Spanish Armada had succeeded in 1588…who then would have become the world-genius of literature?” Bate’s answer is unabashedly that “Will Shakespeare (born 1564) would have met his match in Lope de Vega (born 1562). Lope de Vega, not Shakespeare was the Mozart of literature.”
It is disconcerting that colleagues outside the field would attempt to make global assumptions about how another field works, or what its needs and contributions are. It is admirable to be inclusive of other languages and literatures, but not at the expense of demolishing a long-established division. Prose, poetry, and drama would all suffer.
Interestingly, why is Spanish drama being virtually singled out? French divisions seem not to be so affected by this proposed restructuring….
Nurture the new but sustain the sessions of a vibrant and cutting-edge genre.

Susan L. Fischer, Professor emerita of Spanish and Comparative Literature, Bucknell University, 45 year life member of MLA.

As many other colleagues have stated in the comments to paragraph 108, the proposa to merge early modern Spanish drama with prose and poetry will only hinder the research presented at the MLA and the intellectual discussions that it generates. This suggested change in the structure of the divisions offers no benefits to scholars and goes against the dynamics of research and teaching in these fields in the US and abroad. Special sessions can be organized for topics that aim to connect all three genres, and there is a logic behind the current division between the drama division and the poetry and prose division (genres which should actually have their individual divisions due to the vast amount of research that each one generates, may I add), which my colleagues have already clearly presented in their comments.

I strongly agree with everything stated here and in paragraph 108. This proposal is detrimental to our specializations and, sadly, will have negative consequences. For all the reasons expressed by my colleagues, this merge should not occur.

Does your group consider modern literature in Irish and Scots Gaelic? We are hoping for advice from members of your group and from the groups called “Irish” and “Scottish” (under Languages, Literatures, and Cultures) about how the MLA should handle Celtic languages/literatures with both medieval and contemporary lives.

My comment here will apply to both the “African to 1990” and “African since 1990” proposed forums..

First, thanks to the architects of this ongoing process for scrapping the initially proposed “southern” vs rest-of-Africa distinction. I could quibble with the pre/post-1990 approach, but, lacking any better, less problematic way to give African Lit more than a single forum, the pre/post-1990 works well enough. The year 1990 seems a touch arbitrary, but lacking a truly transformational year like 1945 for Europe, the year of Mr. Mandela’s release seems fine, though it does signal the regrettable “presentism” of work done in our field.

Thanks also to Marianne Hirsch for asking whether we would prefer to be under the “Comparative” or “Languages, Literatures and Cultures” macro-heading.

Most but not all of the currently proposed forums under the LLC macro-heading are linguistically organized, such as Hebrew, Hungarian, Korean, Occitan, the various forums under Italian, French, German-Germanophone, etc. Some are national-multilingual (e.g. Canadian, “American”), while others are an unclassifiable mix, most notably “Russian and Eurasian” (!). The first three of the seven listed Latin American forums (colonial, 19th century, and 20th-21st century) are closest to the pre/post-1990 Africa forums currently under consideration for us: continental in scope, historically organized, and (ideally) multilingual. On this basis, we would fit well under Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.

Does or should “Africa to 1990” and “Africa since 1990” fit in that heterogeneous array? Of course yes, since both of our proposed forums would be geographically, culturally, and linguistically vast, yet contemplate a certain unity — characteristics for which “comparison” seems best.

Having made this argument for inclusion in the “Comparative” sector, there is something about the Languages-Literatures-Cultures macro-heading, and the forums contained within it, which somehow seem more solid, stable, traditional, or, if you will, real. I’m concerned what signal would be sent by excluding ourselves from that. And of course I’m keen on hearing what others have to say.

Thank you for the work in responding to comments on the previous draft.

In answer to Marianne’s question, while there are arguments for both I think the names for the African forums (paras 131, 132, even 133) do read and work more coherently alongside the forum names in the first general category (LLC). Especially if — as David points out — Latin Am and Slavic remain in LLC. In each of these three cases, there’s a good history of various institutions and organizations placing the adjective before LLC.

I’d also note that “African Diaspora” (para 133) can work well by itself under the Comparative – CLCS category, alongside forums like Global South, Global Jewish, etc.

I was originally appalled by the proposal to divide African literature into Southern African and the rest, but I do think this proposed division is worse. The division into before and after 1990 corresponds to nothing in the profession. There is no one who works only after 1990 or whose work does not go past 1990. The previous proposal does correspond to an actual professional divide: there are people who work only on Southern Africa and in fact they have probably been underrepresented in the African literature division. I realise that it is late in the day to say this, but I would suggest a division into African Literature 1:West and East and African Literature 2: Southern. When, eventually, there is another division of the field it would be then between West and East and I think that probably also corresponds to an actual growing divide in the profession.

While the addition of the word “diasporic” to the proposed name change of SALL reflects the current broadening of the field of South Asian Studies, the removal of the word “language” from the new forum title also reflects a major loss. It gives the proposed forum an Anglophone slant. As we know, the linguistic diversity of South Asia is significant as is the range of literary and cultural productions in these languages. Given the fragility of non-European languages around the world, we think it important that the forum title invite conversations in the many South Asian Languages. Therefore we propose that MLA consider revising the proposed title to the following: Languages and Literatures of South Asia and the Diaspora (LLSAD).

In response to member comments about the absence from the MLA map of Jewish literatures outside the US, Hebrew, Yiddish and Sephardic , this rubric replaces “Jewish Cultural Studies.” This latter group did not respond to any of the invitations to comment on the revision process.

I remain concerned about the “Genre” category, specifically I am concerned about the lack of a space for the kind of work which is being produced by contemporary writers across the globe. It is likely that we will need to recognize the complex crossing of the genres known as “hybridity” and I’d urge the MLA to do so as part of the current revision. With the exception of “Comics and Graphic Narratives” the genres as listed are inherited from previous eras, and they do not fully describe the innovations which have occurred and are occurring in our field.

Might it be appropriate to further divide this forum into two sections – children’s vs. young adult literatures? I’m only beginning to work in the field, so I cannot yet comment on the current usage, but my impression at the last MLA was that nearly all the “children’s literature” sessions were in fact young adult sessions and that children’s literature would merit additional slots. Alternatively, one could subdivide this forum based on genre (this is, after all, located within the genre category in this forum structure), such that there is a distinction between, say, novels (generally YA) and poetry, picturebooks, etc., which seem to be underrepresented by comparison.

I like the specificity of “Fairy Tale” as a modifier, but it seems too narrow because it fails to address the related and equally important category “Myth” (which has no other specific forum representation in this draft). So many texts combine elements of myth and fairy tale that “Folklore, Myth, and Fairy Tale” would seem to be a title that better reflects the kind of texts and materials currently being studied by this group.

I am currently the Chair of what will be the Life Writing Division. This tile for Nonfiction prose is less unwieldy than what it used to have, but how will people know that it isn’t life writing? Why not collapse these areas? If not, we need to show how this is different from life writing, which is a developed field in its own right.

I welcome the division of the very broad “Literature and the Other Arts” forum into “sound” and “visual culture”, but am curious whether “sound” accurately describes the kind of work that is done here. Do “Word and Music Studies” fit comfortably in this forum? Certainly there is overlap, but literature’s engagement with music cannot be reduced to elements of sound (as when a novel imitates jazz’s improvisatory qualities or structural patterns borrowed from music) – and sound in, say, poetry, need not be connected to the “other art” of music at all.

Again, I’m glad to see a section focused particularly on music/sound as distinct from images but am not sure about the title.

Let me fill in some additional details on the place of Composition, Rhetoric, and Writing Studies in the proposed new MLA structure. I am pleased that our field is now recognized as a major area of teaching and research. And I think the new categories provide space for a wide range of scholarship, issues and concerns.

Let me note that there is also a forum titled “Program Administration” under the general section, “Higher Education and the Profession” (formerly “Teaching and the Profession”). It is meant to bring together composition, creative writing, and undergraduate program administration more broadly.

There were two areas that I had hoped for that didn’t make the final cut. The committee considered a forum titled “Technical, Scientific and Professional Writing.” Apparently there is an allied organization for Business Writing, one with a guaranteed spot on the program, and that was felt to be enough.

We also were hoping for something like “Digital Composition,” but the general sense was that the current category , “Digital Humanities,” was sufficient.

New forums, however, may be proposed at a later date, once the new area of Rhetoric, Composition and Writing Studies has shown it can attract people and proposals. If you are reading this and you will be in Chicago, please make a point to attend the open discussion. Now that there is new room for us, we need to move in and make our presence felt.

Hmm. Splitting rhetoric and composition is going to lead to all sorts of problems in people knowing which grouping to align themselves with. But I suppose having “History and Theory of” precede both is meant to stop people from thinking composition doesn’t have theory, so I guess it might be OK. But, I’m saying that mostly because I can’t think right now of what else to suggest.

I’m wondering what areas of scholarly work this new forum covers. The term “literacy” usually seems used for a rudimentary level of reading and writing. My scholarship focuses on the practice, experience, and effects of literary reading with proficiency assumed. Could it be classified as “literacy studies”?

On behalf of the Society for the History of Authorship, Reading & Publishing (SHARP), the premier international society for book History–that is, the study of the written word in all its multiple forms [www.sharpweb.org], I am writing to express our thanks that Book History, Print Cultures as been recognized as an relevant, needed forum at MLA. We are pleased to have “Lexicography” as part of our group. A number of scholars working in lexicography also work in book history (though a number of lexicographers are also aligned with linguistics).

I should also not that “book history” deals with formats from clay tablets to the digital page and all related issues in the creation, production, dissemination, and reception of the written word. In other words, book historians look not only to the past but also very much to the future.

At yesterday’s Open Hearing on the Future of MLA Divisions and Discussion Groups, I noticed that several of the comments concerned matters of geography. From there I went to an outstanding special session on Archipelagic American Studies–one of an increasing number of MLA panels and roundtables devoted to questions of space and place. With this momentum in mind, and given MLA president Margaret Ferguson’s announcement of “Negotiating Sites of Memory” as the presidential theme for the 2015 convention, I’d like to propose an additional forum that explores the transdisciplinary connections between “Geography and Literature.”

Based on any number of articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education, books published in the last two decades, the growth of digital humanities organizations and centers around the world, the development of digital humanities curricula at the graduate (and now undergraduate) level, and long-standing funding initiatives by the NEH and other agencies, the time has clearly come to say that “digital humanities” is an important field of study in the MLA, especially from a scholarly editing (e.g., TEI) and pedagogical point of view.

The “field” merits a forum, along with more PMLA essays like “Database as Genre: The Epic Transformation of Archives” (2007) and other initiatives that make our profession understandable and “pertinent” to State Legislatures, Governors, etc like that of Florida. Jerome McGann has argued all of this for years, and now it falls to us to carry forward.

Thank you for this open discussion forum. I hope that next year when I renew my MLA dues I’ll see a research category that reflects what many of us now do alongside early American literature, British literature, etc–digital humanities

Given the incorporation of “Computer Studies in Language and Literature,” “Methods of Literary Research,” and “Interdisciplinary Approaches to Culture and Society” in this forum’s new title, it seems to me that the “present” term “Digital Humanities” may prove too narrow in the future, as well as may seem to obliteratre historical concerns of the incorporated groups.

I suggest using “Digital Humanities Scholarship” [or, “Digital Humanities Pedagogy and Scholarship”] (advocated in recent Chronicle of Higher Education Forum discussions about limitations of the term “Digital Humanities”); or “Digital Humanities Studies”; or another rubric that can also include some reference to the previous groups, which, taken together, focus on computer-assisted research methods and on other non-computer-assisted research methods pertaining to language and literary studies. Enlargement to include “Humanities” does broaden the category so as to make it more interdisciplinary (“cross-disciplinary” or “transdisciplinary”) in its concerns.

Some other MLA members have commented in other sections (of both the earlier draft and this one) on the prevailing focus on what is “present” in some of the proposed changes, particularly with respect to “Digital Humanities,” which has caught on relatively recently but really does not include the historical focus of the incorporated approaches categories.

The discussion about the right descriptor for this proposed division led to a parallel discussion and debate on our health humanities listserv. I think this is a great solution, using past formations to launch a new wave of the discipline that is more inclusive–of the social sciences as well as non-physicians. I look forward to what this division can do within (and beyond?) the MLA. A new edition of Teaching [Medical Humanities and Health Studies] would be a good start.

Since psychoanalysis is a kind of psychology, the proposed name has a redundancy. It should be simply “Psychology andLiterature.” Indeed, the old “Psychological Approaches to Literature.” was perfectly accurate. Why are we changing it?

Norman Hollands’ point makes sense to me. (It might be helpful to review the pertinent comments on the previous draft.)

It seems to me that “Psychology and Literature” is more parallel to “Anthropology and Literature,” “History and Literature,” “Law and Literature,” “Sociology and Literature,” and that “Law and the Humanities” seems incongruous with this grouping, as does “Religion and Culture.” For the related point, please see the comment on “Religion and Culture” suggesting changing it to “Religion and Literature” (closer to the original “Literature and Religion”), which parallels the majority of the others in this grouping.

I don’t support this name change. It is not clear why “Religion and Culture” would not be as well handled by sociologists or anthropologists or historians. Literature departments have not been well served by efforts to rebrand either explicitly or implicitly as cultural studies departments. If we let the “literary” slide into the “cultural,” it becomes harder to see what distinctive work we do in lit departments, and thus harder to justify our continued existence. “Literature and Religion” already marks our openness to interdisciplinarity, but I worry about the integrity and purchase of our particular discipline if we don’t highlight the specifically literary as opposed to the generally cultural.

The Literature and Religion Executive Committee unanimously dissents from the proposed retitling of the division to “Religion and Culture.” We propose renaming the division “Religion and Literature,” a formulation that parallels other Transdisciplinary Connections forums, e.g. History and Literature, Philosophy and Literature, Anthropology and Literature, and Sociology and Literature. “Religion” as a category is already chronologically, linguistically, and ecumenically expansive, and the consensus of the Executive Committee is that we need to retain the disciplinary specificity of “and Literature” to maintain a distinct identity. Furthermore, the “Religion and Culture” name appears to have originated in a single comment on the first draft of the proposed reorganization document. That is not sufficient in our view to overrule the unanimous assessment of the Executive Committee.

I agree with Steven Fallon and Liam Corley that the new proposed is unnecessarily broad, and blurs the division’s focus on connections between religion and literature. I endorse Liam’s suggestion that the committee be renamed “Religion and Literature.”

This is a late suggestion, but the more I’ve thought about the change of GLBT Studies to Sexuality Studies, the more I’ve thought that there should also be (in addition to Sexuality Studies) a forum for Queer Theory and Studies. At the last MLA, there were 43 panels that had “queer” in the panel title or in one or more of the panelist’s papers, and while this might suggest that queer is going to be included regardless of whether it’s in the name of a forum, it also indicates that there’s sufficient interest in queer studies for it to deserve to be a forum of its own. Moreover, Sexuality Studies and Queer Theory/Studies, while overlapping in some cases, aren’t the same thing, and we need some forum in the MLA structure that not only accommodates the research and teaching interests of a significant number of members but also signals support for queer students and faculty. Debra Moddelmog, Ohio State University

On behalf of the entire Executive Committee for the Division hitherto known as “Sociological Approaches to Literature,” I am writing to protest the change of the name of our Division/Forum to “Sociology and Literature.” We feel this name greatly misrepresents the scholarship our division features, both historically and in the present. We have little relation to the traditional discipline of sociology. Rather, our Division approaches literature, culture, and society through a historical materialist approach, in the tradition of marxist cultural criticism, the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, and more recently, queer of color critique. In the manner of scholars such as Max Weber, Stuart Hall, and Avery Gordon, we align with a critical tradition in which sociology is always already critically engaged with political economy, materialism, and critical theory. In light of the call to rename Divisions/Forums to better fit their actual preoccupations, we suggested our division be renamed “Marxist Literary and Cultural Studies.” Apparently, this has been summarily rejected. In light of that, we suggest the names “Marxism and Literature” or “Literature and Society.” We would appreciate hearing from MLA Staff on this issue.

Many thanks,
Jodi Melamed

Secretary for the Division Sociological Approaches to Literature 2014-2015

I don’t think that this name change is necessary. There was no evidence that it was preventing people from addressing the issues that affect contingent faculty broadly — like lack of academic freedom protections, and it did serve as a reminder that part-timers are the majority.

It seems odd that The Teaching of Literature is tucked away here under Higher Education and the Profession while Writing Pedagogies has a seemingly more central place in the disciplinary category of Rhetoric, Composition, and Writing Studies. It suggests–inadvertently, I’m sure–that pedagogy in literary studies is merely an issue of professionalization, almost an afterthought, rather than a more fundamental component of literary studies. Perhaps this accurately describes the status of literary pedagogy, in contrast to the way writing pedagogy has developed as a primary constituent of composition studies. However the structure of the forum list need not reinforce that marginalized position. Because the vast majority of the forums on the list involve literature, a alternative location for The Teaching of Literature isn’t obvious. What about placing it in Theory and Method as it involves both?

Activity

Recent Comments on this Page

From the Discussion Group on Catalan Language and Literature
We appreciate very much the priority given by the MLA in rethinking its structure to “the protection of small fields, including the study of less commonly taught languages” (http://groupsdiscussion.mla.hcommons.org/introduction/faq/). Consequently, the Discussion Group on Catalan Language and Literature welcomes the proposal to institute a “Catalan Forum” as it currently stands in the Jan. 3th, 2014 draft (http://groupsdiscussion.mla.hcommons.org/).
We would like to propose, however, two modifications to the current draft. First, we would like to see the Forum titled “Catalan Studies” instead of only “Catalan” in order to encompass a wider diversity of disciplines. Secondly, we believe that, given the millenary history of Catalan culture and also the growing interest in this field, Catalan warrants not one but two forums, one on “Pre-Modern Catalan Studies” and one on “Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies.”
The cultural production in Catalan, which spans the geographical areas of Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearic Islands, the Roussillon and Sardinia and traverses various “national” boundaries (Spain, France, Andorra, Italy), is commonly divided into two periods of especial intensity and prominence with distinct characteristics: the medieval and early modern period from the twelfth to the seventeenth centuries, and the modern and contemporary period from the eighteenth century to the present. We believe that the more elastic categories of “Pre-Modern Catalan Studies” and “Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies” can accommodate in a satisfactory way the two main divisions which structure our field. We are confident that these two proposed Catalan forums will serve as a lively space of intellectual exchange for the growing number of scholars working on Catalan culture.
We equally appreciate that our colleagues from the Executive Committee of the Division of 20th- and 21st-Century Spanish Literature support the creation of one or possibly two Catalan sub-forums under the umbrella of a new encompassing forum called “Iberia.” Catalan culture is an important part of the Iberian Studies field, and we welcome the long due acknowledgment, and the opening of more spaces for intellectual discussion. “Catalan Studies”, however, spans way beyond Iberia, and must continue to stand on its own. With a distinct forum on Catalan Studies we can freely engage with any interconnected field of study without being sidestepped to a subaltern position. We believe that a distinct Forum as the proposed in the aforementioned MLA revised draft, with the addition of our suggested modifications, is the right fit for what we envision as the future of Catalan Studies, one of the strongest emerging new fields of study in US academia. We are looking forward to continuing being a part of the MLA community.

I strongly support the creation of a “Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas” forum. Such a forum would give recognition and structure to a growing subfield within Hispanic studies. I know of a number of scholars who are currently working on cultural and literary relations between Spain and Africa – with a particular emphasis on Morocco and Equatorial Guinea. The new forum will bolster this surge in scholarly interest in Hispano-African relations, and it will also create a space for other Hispanophone literatures (such as Hispanophone literature from the Philippines) that have received less scholarly attention.

In order to keep the intrinsic interdisciplinary, multicultural, and bilingual nature of Galician Studies, Galician needs to have its own forum within the MLA. Linking Galician studies with Portuguese only separates it from the Spanish studies area where a good number of research projects in Galician is conducted. Having its own forum will allow Galician studies to grow and develop free from national and ideological borders. I strongly support the creation of an independent division for Galician Studies.

I strongly support the creation of a “Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas” forum. This is an already significant and rapidly-growing area of study that has developed largely within the academic programs represented by the MLA, but that has not been represented within the existing MLA division structure. This is an ideal opportunity to bring the MLA structure in line with current trends in the field.

I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups. We are happy to learn that the MLA took into consideration the remarks posted online about the first phase of the MLA reorganization. In total, there were five remarks (one was posted twice, so the overall number is five not six). Two remarks welcomed setting up a classical/post classical Arabic group, whereas three remarks did not agree with this direction. Moreover, two comments, out of those three, wished there were more emphasis on comparative and multilingual Arab literature. The online feedback has helped us reconsider our initial plans, and at the 2014 meeting of the Executive Committee and our division discussed how we could better serve our members.

As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”

Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.

Our diasporic panels have been among the most successful sessions in terms of proposal submission and attendance. Notwithstanding this success, our division cannot keep up with the vast volume of works that appear in English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese, among other languages, by authors with roots in the Arab-speaking world. Therefore, establishing a new, separate “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” forum is necessary.

Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.

By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).

We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.

Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.

[The entire letter is posted under 29 “Arabic. I have excerpted here the parts that pertain to setting up the “Arab American” forum and the rationale for proposing this new forum. – Suha]
Dear Marianne and Margaret,
I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups.
As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”
Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.
Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.
By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).
We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.
Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.
Regards,
Suha Kudsieh (Chair , Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, 2014-5)
On behalf of the members of the Executive Committee
MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture:
Stephen Sheehi (Secretary), Chris Micklethwait (Ex-Chair), Wail Hassan, and Hoda El Shakry.
Shaden Tageldin and Samer Ali, MLA delegate representatives.

I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups. We are happy to learn that the MLA took into consideration the remarks posted online about the first phase of the MLA reorganization. In total, there were five remarks (one was posted twice, so the overall number is five not six). Two remarks welcomed setting up a classical/post classical Arabic group, whereas three remarks did not agree with this direction. Moreover, two comments, out of those three, wished there were more emphasis on comparative and multilingual Arab literature. The online feedback has helped us reconsider our initial plans, and at the 2014 meeting of the Executive Committee and our division discussed how we could better serve our members.

As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”

Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.

Our diasporic panels have been among the most successful sessions in terms of proposal submission and attendance. Notwithstanding this success, our division cannot keep up with the vast volume of works that appear in English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese, among other languages, by authors with roots in the Arab-speaking world. Therefore, establishing a new, separate “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” forum is necessary.

Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.

By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).

We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.

Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.

I agree with Elisa Martí-López’s previous comment. The proposal for an Iberian umbrella is a valuable and refreshing one indeed. As a member of the Catalan Discussion Group, however, I also feel that an alternative is to maintain Catalan as a separate forum. I do not have categorical reasons to support this second option. One could say that maintaining Catalan as a separate forum is a way of not privileging the Iberian connections over other possible dialogues between Catalan culture and any of the cultures of the globe. But of course one can argue the opposite, namely that Catalan culture cannot be understood outside the Iberian context. But perhaps maintaining Catalan as a separate forum and then creating a forum on Iberia within the larger category of Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies, as Martí-López suggests, could be a satisfactory way of solving this unsolvable conundrum.
At any rate, a key point of agreement is that Catalan warrants two forums: one on Pre-Modern Catalan Studies and one on Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies. These elastic categories offer a vital periodization of the millenary history of Catalan culture, which is commonly divided into the medieval period from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, and the modern period from the end of the nineteenth century to the present.

On behalf of the entire Executive Committee for the Division hitherto known as “Sociological Approaches to Literature,” I am writing to protest the change of the name of our Division/Forum to “Sociology and Literature.” We feel this name greatly misrepresents the scholarship our division features, both historically and in the present. We have little relation to the traditional discipline of sociology. Rather, our Division approaches literature, culture, and society through a historical materialist approach, in the tradition of marxist cultural criticism, the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, and more recently, queer of color critique. In the manner of scholars such as Max Weber, Stuart Hall, and Avery Gordon, we align with a critical tradition in which sociology is always already critically engaged with political economy, materialism, and critical theory. In light of the call to rename Divisions/Forums to better fit their actual preoccupations, we suggested our division be renamed “Marxist Literary and Cultural Studies.” Apparently, this has been summarily rejected. In light of that, we suggest the names “Marxism and Literature” or “Literature and Society.” We would appreciate hearing from MLA Staff on this issue.

Many thanks,
Jodi Melamed

Secretary for the Division Sociological Approaches to Literature 2014-2015

Recent Comments in this Document

From the Discussion Group on Catalan Language and Literature
We appreciate very much the priority given by the MLA in rethinking its structure to “the protection of small fields, including the study of less commonly taught languages” (http://groupsdiscussion.mla.hcommons.org/introduction/faq/). Consequently, the Discussion Group on Catalan Language and Literature welcomes the proposal to institute a “Catalan Forum” as it currently stands in the Jan. 3th, 2014 draft (http://groupsdiscussion.mla.hcommons.org/).
We would like to propose, however, two modifications to the current draft. First, we would like to see the Forum titled “Catalan Studies” instead of only “Catalan” in order to encompass a wider diversity of disciplines. Secondly, we believe that, given the millenary history of Catalan culture and also the growing interest in this field, Catalan warrants not one but two forums, one on “Pre-Modern Catalan Studies” and one on “Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies.”
The cultural production in Catalan, which spans the geographical areas of Catalonia, Valencia, the Balearic Islands, the Roussillon and Sardinia and traverses various “national” boundaries (Spain, France, Andorra, Italy), is commonly divided into two periods of especial intensity and prominence with distinct characteristics: the medieval and early modern period from the twelfth to the seventeenth centuries, and the modern and contemporary period from the eighteenth century to the present. We believe that the more elastic categories of “Pre-Modern Catalan Studies” and “Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies” can accommodate in a satisfactory way the two main divisions which structure our field. We are confident that these two proposed Catalan forums will serve as a lively space of intellectual exchange for the growing number of scholars working on Catalan culture.
We equally appreciate that our colleagues from the Executive Committee of the Division of 20th- and 21st-Century Spanish Literature support the creation of one or possibly two Catalan sub-forums under the umbrella of a new encompassing forum called “Iberia.” Catalan culture is an important part of the Iberian Studies field, and we welcome the long due acknowledgment, and the opening of more spaces for intellectual discussion. “Catalan Studies”, however, spans way beyond Iberia, and must continue to stand on its own. With a distinct forum on Catalan Studies we can freely engage with any interconnected field of study without being sidestepped to a subaltern position. We believe that a distinct Forum as the proposed in the aforementioned MLA revised draft, with the addition of our suggested modifications, is the right fit for what we envision as the future of Catalan Studies, one of the strongest emerging new fields of study in US academia. We are looking forward to continuing being a part of the MLA community.

I strongly support the creation of a “Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas” forum. Such a forum would give recognition and structure to a growing subfield within Hispanic studies. I know of a number of scholars who are currently working on cultural and literary relations between Spain and Africa – with a particular emphasis on Morocco and Equatorial Guinea. The new forum will bolster this surge in scholarly interest in Hispano-African relations, and it will also create a space for other Hispanophone literatures (such as Hispanophone literature from the Philippines) that have received less scholarly attention.

In order to keep the intrinsic interdisciplinary, multicultural, and bilingual nature of Galician Studies, Galician needs to have its own forum within the MLA. Linking Galician studies with Portuguese only separates it from the Spanish studies area where a good number of research projects in Galician is conducted. Having its own forum will allow Galician studies to grow and develop free from national and ideological borders. I strongly support the creation of an independent division for Galician Studies.

I strongly support the creation of a “Hispanophone outside of Spain and the Americas” forum. This is an already significant and rapidly-growing area of study that has developed largely within the academic programs represented by the MLA, but that has not been represented within the existing MLA division structure. This is an ideal opportunity to bring the MLA structure in line with current trends in the field.

I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups. We are happy to learn that the MLA took into consideration the remarks posted online about the first phase of the MLA reorganization. In total, there were five remarks (one was posted twice, so the overall number is five not six). Two remarks welcomed setting up a classical/post classical Arabic group, whereas three remarks did not agree with this direction. Moreover, two comments, out of those three, wished there were more emphasis on comparative and multilingual Arab literature. The online feedback has helped us reconsider our initial plans, and at the 2014 meeting of the Executive Committee and our division discussed how we could better serve our members.

As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”

Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.

Our diasporic panels have been among the most successful sessions in terms of proposal submission and attendance. Notwithstanding this success, our division cannot keep up with the vast volume of works that appear in English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese, among other languages, by authors with roots in the Arab-speaking world. Therefore, establishing a new, separate “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” forum is necessary.

Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.

By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).

We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.

Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.

[The entire letter is posted under 29 “Arabic. I have excerpted here the parts that pertain to setting up the “Arab American” forum and the rationale for proposing this new forum. – Suha]
Dear Marianne and Margaret,
I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups.
As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”
Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.
Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.
By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).
We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.
Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.
Regards,
Suha Kudsieh (Chair , Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, 2014-5)
On behalf of the members of the Executive Committee
MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture:
Stephen Sheehi (Secretary), Chris Micklethwait (Ex-Chair), Wail Hassan, and Hoda El Shakry.
Shaden Tageldin and Samer Ali, MLA delegate representatives.

I write on behalf of the Executive Committee of the MLA Division on Arabic Literature and Culture, as well as the division’s delegates to the MLA Delegate Assembly, regarding the proposed MLA reorganization of Divisions and Discussion Groups. We are happy to learn that the MLA took into consideration the remarks posted online about the first phase of the MLA reorganization. In total, there were five remarks (one was posted twice, so the overall number is five not six). Two remarks welcomed setting up a classical/post classical Arabic group, whereas three remarks did not agree with this direction. Moreover, two comments, out of those three, wished there were more emphasis on comparative and multilingual Arab literature. The online feedback has helped us reconsider our initial plans, and at the 2014 meeting of the Executive Committee and our division discussed how we could better serve our members.

As indicated in our first letter and in light of the fact that our panels have been increasing exponentially (9 panels in 2013, and 20-21 panels in 2014) and that the number of our members is swelling (716 official members in 2013, of whom 144 are on the MLA Commons), we understand that having one division cannot keep up with the diverse interests of our members. We therefore suggest setting up two new forums: “Arab American,” to be listed under 15: “American,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures,” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” to be listed under 29: “Arabic,” within the broader category “Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.”

Since its inception, our division has not been able to dedicate an entire panel to examining Arab American literature and culture even though Arab American literature dates back to the late nineteenth century. Arab American authors (Amin Rihani, Gibran K. Gibran, Diana Abu-Jaber, Laila Lalami, Naomi Shihab Nye, and Mohja Kahf, among many others) are well known and their works are taught in Departments of English and Ethnic American Studies. Moreover, a good number of colleagues have written their dissertations and published on these works; see recent books and edited volumes by Layla Al Maleh, Carol Fadda-Conrey, Nouri Gana, Wail Hassan, Syrine Hout, Evelyn Alsultany, Jacob Rama Berman, and Steven Salaita, as well as MELUS, 31.4 (winter 2006). Unfortunately, since our division has a limited number of panels (two guaranteed panels, plus the two special panels, one of which is co-sponsored), there has not been sufficient room to examine this rich literature or to accommodate other areas that exist within Arabic literature and culture. We therefore request that a new Arab American forum be established. Since there isn’t an executive committee that oversees all of the thirteen divisions listed under “American”, we propose adding the Arab American forum on behalf of our colleagues who do not consider themselves Arabists, but Americanists, who teach in American Ethnic programs and departments and publish on Arab American literature.

Our diasporic panels have been among the most successful sessions in terms of proposal submission and attendance. Notwithstanding this success, our division cannot keep up with the vast volume of works that appear in English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish and Portuguese, among other languages, by authors with roots in the Arab-speaking world. Therefore, establishing a new, separate “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab” forum is necessary.

Since a good number of MLA members are already active in American and Diaspora Studies, we anticipate that setting up executive committees for these new forums will proceed smoothly. The new forums will be up and running in no time.

By establishing these two forums, our current division (Arabic Literature and Culture) will be able to explore new areas and themes more freely (e.g. disability, ecocriticism, intersections with the sciences and the medical humanities, and similarly interesting themes). The creation of these forums will also give us a chance to dedicate entire panels to media, the medieval and pre-modern period, or to specific regions (Iraqi literature and culture, or the literature of the Arabian Gulf, etc.).

We ask that the two new proposed forums, “Arab American” and “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” be guaranteed at least one panel each. Further, we ask that the current forum “Arabic” be guaranteed four panels of its own. Since many of us do not wish at this time to divide “Arabic” by period, we need the space (structural and intellectual) to host enough guaranteed panels to cover the full temporal and geographic span of literary and cultural production in Arabic (as opposed to in the many languages of the diaspora). Moreover, since the “Arabic” forum will be the catch-all space for all that is Arabic-related but not “Arab American” or “Multilingual and Diasporic Arab,” it will need four guaranteed panels to do justice to that vast terrain. We write in response to former MLA President Marianne Hirsch’s generous invitation that we propose such a solution at the recent open hearing on MLA reorganization at the 2014 MLA Convention in Chicago. As mentioned earlier, our membership has been on the rise, and there is a palpable demand for panels on Arabic literature and culture; therefore, and in order to serve our members better, the division needs to give our members much needed room (i.e. panels) to present their work and share the fruits of their research with their colleagues at the MLA’s annual convention.

Setting up the two new forums will help us cultivate new MLA members, increase our audience, and diversify the themes of our panels.

I agree with Elisa Martí-López’s previous comment. The proposal for an Iberian umbrella is a valuable and refreshing one indeed. As a member of the Catalan Discussion Group, however, I also feel that an alternative is to maintain Catalan as a separate forum. I do not have categorical reasons to support this second option. One could say that maintaining Catalan as a separate forum is a way of not privileging the Iberian connections over other possible dialogues between Catalan culture and any of the cultures of the globe. But of course one can argue the opposite, namely that Catalan culture cannot be understood outside the Iberian context. But perhaps maintaining Catalan as a separate forum and then creating a forum on Iberia within the larger category of Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies, as Martí-López suggests, could be a satisfactory way of solving this unsolvable conundrum.
At any rate, a key point of agreement is that Catalan warrants two forums: one on Pre-Modern Catalan Studies and one on Modern and Contemporary Catalan Studies. These elastic categories offer a vital periodization of the millenary history of Catalan culture, which is commonly divided into the medieval period from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, and the modern period from the end of the nineteenth century to the present.

On behalf of the entire Executive Committee for the Division hitherto known as “Sociological Approaches to Literature,” I am writing to protest the change of the name of our Division/Forum to “Sociology and Literature.” We feel this name greatly misrepresents the scholarship our division features, both historically and in the present. We have little relation to the traditional discipline of sociology. Rather, our Division approaches literature, culture, and society through a historical materialist approach, in the tradition of marxist cultural criticism, the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, and more recently, queer of color critique. In the manner of scholars such as Max Weber, Stuart Hall, and Avery Gordon, we align with a critical tradition in which sociology is always already critically engaged with political economy, materialism, and critical theory. In light of the call to rename Divisions/Forums to better fit their actual preoccupations, we suggested our division be renamed “Marxist Literary and Cultural Studies.” Apparently, this has been summarily rejected. In light of that, we suggest the names “Marxism and Literature” or “Literature and Society.” We would appreciate hearing from MLA Staff on this issue.

Many thanks,
Jodi Melamed

Secretary for the Division Sociological Approaches to Literature 2014-2015